All things considered, what would your practical calendar be?

[PabloTeK]

1. South African GP - Kyalami
2. Australian GP - Albert Park
3. Malaysian GP - Sepang
4. US East GP - Indianapolis
5. US West GP - Long Beach
6. Canadian GP - Montreal
7. Monaco GP - Monte Carlo
8. Spanish GP - Jerez
9. British BP - Silverstone
10. French GP - Le Mans
11. German GP - Hockenheim/Nurburgring
12. European GP - Imola
13. Belgian GP - Spa
14. Dutch GP - Zandvoort
15. Italian GP - Monza
16. Singaporean GP - Marina Bay
17. Japanese GP - Suzuka
18. Brazilian GP - Interlagos

No Bahrain, China, Valencia, Hungary or Barcelona!

[Birddog07]

Originally Posted by Wims

Well, Silverstone is a terrible track so any change it gets is good in my book. The new layout is a bit better than the old one imo

I'll agree with you on Silverstone not being the most exciting track, than again alot of tracks aren't all too exciting with F1 cars 'racing' on them. However, the old track had character. The new section is all mickey mouse rubbish with huge paved runoffs, the old sections have been butchered with runnoffs and grandstands have been moved back.

[Alwaysfirst]

1-Australia: Albert Park (although heart says Adelaide)
2-Malaysia: Sepang
3-Abu Dhabi:Yas Marina
4-Spain: Catalunya
5-Monaco: Monte Carlo
6-Austria: A1-Ring
7-Canada: Montreal
8-USA: Austin
9-Mexico: Mexico City (revamped)
10-Portugal: Algarve
11-Europe: Imola
12-France: Paul Ricard
13-Great Britain: Silverstone
14-Germany: Hockenheim
15-Poland: Ponzan (brought up to F1 standard)
16-Czech Republic: Brno
17-Belgium: Spa-Francorchamps
18-Italy: Monza
19-Singapore: Marina Bay
20-Japan: Suzuka
21-Argentina: Potrero de Los Funes (I wish, but it would be great!)
22-Brazil: Interlagos

I have got rid of most of the new races for different reasons... Bahrain because the track is boring & there is almost no spectators, China because there are no spectators, Korea because it is struggling to build the track (Another Tilke-drome), let alone run the race, India because it isn't built yet & apart from about 2 corners doesn't look like it's up to much, Hungary because although it is a driving challenge it is also a challenge to watch an entire race from there, Valencia because it's appalling in almost every way, Istanbul because it is pretty much empty...

I would like to see Istanbul back as it is a really good track. I would also like to see South Africa on there if Kyalami could be spiced up or another track built. A Scandinavian race (Gotlandring, if it ever gets finished?), a Dutch race (either of the existing big tracks would be good but not at the expense of the tracks being massacred) and a New Zealand race would also both be great as they usually have great crowds (NL & NZ) and really passionate fans (all 3).

[Purist]

Wims, a proper World Championship like F1 should have the full spectrum of road courses. That means, there should be, say, 2-3 tracks at either extreme of the spectrum. Of course, they should be good tracks as well.

At the slow, technical end of things, you could run at Singapore, Monaco, and Zhuhai perhaps. Hungaroring is too tight overall to be particularly good for actual racing. A track certainly can be fairly tight and twisty, but as long are there are a few stretches of sufficient length taken at high speed, the racing can still be decent.

At the other end, the main track you have left is Monza, and we used to have Hockenheim (up through 2001). Imola, Paul Ricard, and Motorland Aragon sort of fit the bill too. Also, Spa and Suzuka are just as much "stupid high speed circuits" as is Silverstone, if you're going to be fair and balanced about this.

With all the corners they've added, Silverstone has long since degenerated to just being a "normal", middle range, fairly quick, technical track, but nothing that's all that special in terms of layout. Silverstone was at its best when it was a simple, high-speed track. Copse, Stowe, and Club were NOT flat-out in their old forms, and Woodcote was difficult to take flat-out. I could see Woodcote being flat in current cars, but not the other three, especially when you'd be approaching them at full tilt, and with decidedly less downforce than you currently carry at Silverstone.

Donington would fall into the "stupid high-speed circuits" category if F1 used it now, and even moreso if they used the revised version of Donington. Imola isn't all that different from Monza, except that the racing is even worse than at its Milan counterpart. And the one chicane that has been removed since F1 departed, the Variente Bassa, is the one that was going to do the least to actually improve the racing. If you seriously want the racing to improve at Imola, get rid of the Tamburello AND Villeneuve Chicanes, period; there is no other way to do it.

Paul Ricard, in its full form, without the Mistral Chicane, is quite a nice track. You get two good, technical sections with a mix of corner speeds, and two straights that should be sufficient, if not quite good, for slipstreaming passes.

Speaking of slipstreaming, someone asked why Monza had the historic reputation it does, and quite a bit of that stems from before any of the chicanes were added. Back then (before 1972), you could have trains of several cars in a row swapping places multiple times a lap. The racing was close enough, and the front straight wide enough, that you could have guys come past the pits four abreast (and not just on the first lap of the race either). To this day, the 1971 Italian GP (the last without the chicanes) has the record for the closest top five finish in F1 history with the front five covered by 0.625 of a second. Reims also saw these sorts of slipstreaming battles, particularly after the changes made for 1953.

Motorlad Aragon isn't far off Paul Ricard, especially if you take out that huge chicane on the back side, which for cars, you definitely want to. Think about, the cars are going to be REALLY spread out coming onto the back straight if you use that chicane, because they'll have to deal with the accordion effect four times in a row immediately before entering the straight,. Plus, cutting the back "straight" at Aragon down to 960m (I think that's what it is with the chicane) significantly reduces the slipstreaming potential, as well as the impact of the hill that the straight runs down.

I would probably class Mexico City in the high-speed category as well. Now, from what I've heard, F1, like A1GP did for the 2008/2009 season, would demand THREE chicanes for the Peraltada alone, which would do quite a bit to take away from the high-speed nature, but would also destroy the racing potential and track character to the point where they may as well not bother going.

Please do note that I consider high-speed tracks to come in at least two main varieties, the true, full-on, high-speed tracks like Monza, old Hockenheim, Enna Pergusa, old Silverstone, and Imola I suppose. Then, you have the more technical, but still bery fast, in average speed, road courses like Spa-Francorchamps, Suzuka, Road America, Philip Island, and Potrero de los Funes perhaps. Two tracks that I could say are kind of a bridge between those two sides would be old Fuji, and Le Mans.

As far as I'm concerned, having watched quite a few races at both, a badly done high-speed track still ALWAYS has better racing than a badly done slow-speed road course.

[Purist]

I figured I would separate this last bit out to help everyone's digestion.

A further note on Spain would be that, with the redone hairping and New Holland Chicane at Barcelona, I wouldn't mind if they just dropped the place.

As for Russia, the Moscow Raceway I can only see being worse than Hungaroring, if such a thing is even possible. The track plans only have one "long" straight (873m, short by new F1 track standards), and with so many slow to medium speed turns on a relatively short lap (17 corners in 4.07km), the cars will be carrying horrendous downforce. This will make top speeds pathetically slow and braking into the hairpin final turn so good that passing on that track will be nigh impossible.