Future Grands Prix?

[S griffin]

I remember when F1 went for a test at Mugello in 2012, Mark Webber said 10 laps around there was more fun than 100 laps round Abu Dhabi! So there’s no doubt it would be a challenge

[Purist]

Crmalcolm, for a circuit to remain legendary, it has to stay alive. When the big series leave, in the eyes of the wider public, or wider racing community, it disappears, and starts fading away. In 1957, Pescara was "legendary", but what about now? Heck, how much of the motorsport community even knows of its existence?

The old Grands Prix developed in a fundamentally different way than the newer races, which is something you seem to overlook. Back then, it was much more organic and grassroots in nature. Now, these newer races are largely PR for state actors seeking greater prestige and recognition on the world stage. To a far greater degree, it isn't even about the racing now, but about showing off a shiny new white elephant built at taxpayer expense, but with little/no concern to most of those who pay into the coffers.

And then there's the nature of so many of the newer circuits, which tend to be quite homogeneous in their layout makeups, and in a number of cases, seem like little more than parking lots with course lines painted on; even Monaco, with its lackluster racing (to put it generously), is a greater spectacle.

Among the newer races (~2000 onward), Malaysia and Singapore seem fairly well received. The racing at least at Baku has also been winning over some people. The track at Istanbul was looked upon rather favorably, even if the race had other issues. I'd actually be curious to see how F1 would go at Buriram in Thailand.

Anyway, Valencia was a flop, and the layout at Vietnam reminds me of it too much in ways that make me think the racing there is likely to be no better. Malaysia, even being a "success" in modern F1, couldn't hang on without heavy subsidies. Korea and India couldn't last; the tracks/racing weren't great, nor turnout it would seem, and they were either too far from a major center (Seoul) or choked by smog (not to mention issues with food and water around Delhi). China and Bahrain don't have a consistent record over their tenures of holding good races, to say nothing of the fan turnout and the nature of the tracks. It's a similar deal with Abu Dhabi. Russia is all PR and has an inconsistent record on the racing front, to say nothing of the less-than-attractive surroundings now that the Olympics are long over. Heck, I even like some sections of the track, but I wouldn't choose it over most any of the other European rounds, Japan, Australia, Canada, or Brazil.

And no, an old venue isn't everything, especially when it's been butchered to meet the current "F1 standard". I really don't care for what they did to the layouts at Mexico City or Fuji. Hockenheim isn't as awful, and Red Bull Ring is probably the best of those circuits.

Then again, history plays a key role in so much as the track design of a given age, and how that stacks up against more modern creations. You mentioned Brazil not being among F1's first 22 race venues, but the original track layout, portions of which are retained today, dates from 1940. Similarly, though it didn't join F1 until 1987, Suzuka's base layout comes from the early '60s. Melbourne, as well, dates back to the '50s as a Grand Prix venue (even if not a points round in F1).

And of course, even within a given era, there is variation in the quality of track designs. For instance, I'd probably rate Brno above the then configuration of Jerez, and both of those higher than Hungaroring.

If we're looking at something like Monaco, or Pau, Vila Real, and Macau, they wouldn't get approved as new today. If they fall off whichever calendars they're on, their days as top-line venues are gone, and their reputations will fall as their existences in the minds of people diminish. Let's face it, revivals at Elkhart Lake and Bridgehampton, or Schloss Solitude, Reims, and Lobethal, don't make it on to national TV like F1, WEC, IndyCar, IMSA, VASC, WTCR, BTCC, etc. do.

And then there's the simple matter of passion, and for many, that is tied to a given place famous for the racing. Those older venues have not only the draw of history, but the crucial advantage of having hosted these events back during a time when a decidedly larger proportion of the overall population paid attention to said events. That level of visibility is something no new venue will ever have again.

But heck, having said all that, I'll leave you with some other venues that aren't the very oldest that I like or have liked in a previous form:
Dijon-Prenois (1972)
Mugello (1974)
Potrero de los Funes (1978)
Most (1983)
Hidden Valley (1986)
Autopolis (1990)
Sachsenring (1996)
Dubai (2004)
Algarve (2008)
Autopia (2013)

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Because true fans see the importance of Monza, it is circuits like that remind most true fans like me why we fell in love with the sport in the first place

From this post, I see that you consider yourself a 'true fan'.
How does one go about achieving 'true fan' status? Is this a club that people can join?

Out of interest, I discussed the importance of Monza being on the calendar with a group of 5 friends who went last year.
Of the group, 3 are returning this year (having been for the last four years), the other 2 have opted to attend different races this season.

When asked why they think Monza matters, the responses were mixed.
All of them said that the passion and atmosphere in the crowd was a definite reason to keep racing there.
A couple of them suggested that, because there are Italian manufacturer(s) in the sport, then Italy should hold a race.
The nature of the circuit was mentioned as being different to other venues.
Only once was the fact that F1 has been going there for years was brought up in the conversation. Most of them felt that, when they are picking which races to go to, the history has no impact on their decision. One person did say it would be a shame to lose the track, but that was because of their own personal memories of being the first race they attended.

The general consensus was that - a race in Italy is important, provided that the crowd retained the same level of passion and enthusiasm. But if that was to be held near Milan, Rome or any other Italian location it would not matter to them.

I guess from that then those people are not true fans?

[CarfanLUFC]

Monza is amazing, i'm not fan of Ferrari but the Tifosi are incredible

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

All of them said that the passion and atmosphere in the crowd was a definite reason to keep racing there...


...Most of them felt that, when they are picking which races to go to, the history has no impact on their decision.

To me, placing an emphasis on passion and atmosphere sounds like an acknowledment/nod towards the importance of history. Rather, passion and atmosphere are built up because of history not despite of it no?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

To me, placing an emphasis on passion and atmosphere sounds like an acknowledment/nod towards the importance of history. Rather, passion and atmosphere are built up because of history not despite of it no?

If the Italian GP was moved to, say, Adria - do we think the atmosphere might be replicated?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

If the Italian GP was moved to, say, Adria - do we think the atmosphere might be replicated?

Over time...perhaps

of course there are difficulties even when moving a race within a country, even one with strong motorsports tradition. I suppose this may be a factor with Germany.

I suppose the size of sanctioning fees vis a vis how much a promoter has to set ticket prices at also impacts a venue's ability to build on an annually returning fan base.

Supposition...a new venue (like Adria) may have to be willing to pay a larger sanctioning fee then the race it is replacing. Thus the new venue must charge more for tickets and it's success in the long run may suffer as a result.

No easy answer here other than history matters in sports.

[S griffin]

Of course history matters in sport, you have to be reminded what made the sport so big in the first place. Places like Monza and Spa do that as well as being great circuits with great atmosphere.

I doubt anyone will feel the same about Abu Dhabi

[Purist]

And this reverence for storied venues is paralleled in how people view American football and baseball stadiums of historic significance. I imagine you get something similar in Europe with famous, long-standing "futbol" stadiums.

As for the "true fan" thing, I take it as a matter of the measure of a person's investment in the sport. Do you just casually pop in and out, or do you at least gradually, over time, try to become more involved and educate yourself about the sport? And obviously, a key part of that education will include the sport's history.

As to Adria specifically for the Italian GP, no, Monza's atmosphere can't be replicated there. The nature of the venue is far too different for that. Some of the crucial aspects of Monza are that it is a particularly high-speed circuit, with a relatively simple layout, and comparatively few corners. In addition, Monza surrounds and envelops you in a much more tangible way, with the grandstands and pits on the main straight, and the forest of the parkland around much of the rest of the circuit.

Adria is tight, slow, and doesn't have the sort of surroundings, but anyway, for starters, it's too short to be considered as a new F1 venue under the FIA regs; it's only 1.679 miles around, whereas Monza is 3.600. The minimum for F1 is 3.5 km (2.175 mi), but realistically, I don't see them picking any permanent circuit under 4.0 km (~2.5 mi), or any new-build circuit under 4.5 km (~2.8 mi).

So, what Italian venues would be closer to the mark? Well, in terms of length and nature of the lap, there's Enna-Pergusa. It has some of the forest, and with the lake, gives more of a park-like setting. The lap is 3.080 miles, and consists largely of flat-out blasts between chicanes. Now, given that it's shorter than Monza by half a mile, I'd look to consolidate Pineta and Proserpina into a single chicane ahead of that first little sweep before Curvone proper. After that, turn Zagaria into something more akin to Variente Ascari. New pits opposite the main stand would take care of that canyon feeling along the front straight.

Vallelunga is just long enough at 2.538 miles, and the first half of the lap is quite fast and flowing; the lap as a while is quite flowing in terms of corner shape except for Soratte. However, you don't really get the parkland surroundings there; the tree cover is rather sparse overall, even if the nearby hills are kind of nice. Also, the shorter lap coupled with Soratte and those two absurdly tight hairpins means the average lap speed won't be anything special. Furthermore, even with Curva Grande flat-out for F1, the place just isn't going to have that feel of being made up predominantly of long, high-speed runs. And this is all without considering the confines of that last sector and the pits/paddock.

Now to the last other venue to host an Italian round: Imola. Unfortunately, there's still too much chicanery here. The lap is 3.050 miles, again compared to Monza which is 3.600, and Imola still has three chicanes, down from four. However, while Monza just has the Lesmos and Parabolica as the other bits where you have to slow down, Imola has Tosa, Piratella, Acque Minerale, and Rivazza. If you were actually going to get it to a more Monza-esque state, take a look at the 1973 layout. Factor in that Acque Minerale and Rivazza are tighter/slower, but then also maybe swap in the 1995-06 Variente Bassa. And it can be said all a person likes that the chicane at Tamburello is there for good, but to fix the actual racing at Imola, especially for F1, it has to go. The road kinks to the left ahead of the chicane, which screws up an awful lot of any attempted overtakes there, because that kink makes your entry shallower and more acute basically by default. And as for the Monza parallel, it's like if you had a chicane at Curva Grande, which will never go over well.

Finally, there's Mugello. It's the next longest after Monza at 3.259 miles, compared to 3.600. Admittedly, it doesn't have the same flat-out blasts between chicanes thing going on, but average lap speeds should definitely be north of 150 mph, and the track has no really slow corners. The front stretch and section from San Lorenzo to Scarperia provide two quite lengthy, ultra-high-speed runs. And though Mugello doesn't have the forest right around, the hills kind of hem the place in, still providing a very pleasing, three-dimensional surround for the circuit. I think the Tifosi will go where F1 goes, especially with this also being a strong, established venue, to say nothing of the owners. And it's a track that provides a challenge while not having all the extra niggly little bits that so many of the newer circuits have that just seem to get in the way of overtaking.

So with Monza as the benchmark, if I had to rank these four tracks, just the circuits themselves, not really worrying about facilities or current run-off issues atm:
1. Mugello
2. Enna-Pergusa
3. Imola
4. Vallelunga

If I wasn't worrying so much about having a circuit with a nature nearer that of Monza:
1. Mugello
2. Vallelunga
3. Enna-Pergusa
4. Imola

I think Enna would put on a more exciting F1 race than Imola. And Misano has been changed too much exclusively for the bikes since 2006 for me to think it would be a good F1 candidate without basically undoing everything that was done to it.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Of course history matters in sport, you have to be reminded what made the sport so big in the first place. Places like Monza and Spa do that as well as being great circuits with great atmosphere.

I doubt anyone will feel the same about Abu Dhabi

Today's race showed that in abundance.

[dsg]

I don't really give a toss about how many people attend a race, or if the country has a steeped history of motor racing. I want good circuits to remain on the calendar.

Monza should stay because the track has exciting races. Spa, Silverstone (old) and Baku and China (new) also seem to produce good races. On the other hand I think Albert Park is an average track and probably wouldn't care if the current Russia, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain and France races were never seen again.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by dsg

I don't really give a toss about how many people attend a race, or if the country has a steeped history of motor racing. I want good circuits to remain on the calendar.

Monza should stay because the track has exciting races. Spa, Silverstone (old) and Baku and China (new) also seem to produce good races. On the other hand I think Albert Park is an average track and probably wouldn't care if the current Russia, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain and France races were never seen again.

Without good crowd attendance, how are the rack owners supposed to finance the track?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Without good crowd attendance, how are the rack owners supposed to finance the track?

Probably a question to ask the organisers of China, Brazil, Japan, Malaysia, Bahrain or Azerbaijan?

They all seem to manage fine without the attendance figures of Monza (which isn't that high compared to some). Demonstrating that high attendance figures are not necessary for a track.

So - if high attendance is not a must, and attendance has been linked here to history, then history is not important either when it comes to a track adding value to the racing calendar.

If Monza produces good races, then it has a place on the calendar. But that is because of the circuit, not everything in the periphery.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Probably a question to ask the organisers of China, Brazil, Japan, Malaysia, Bahrain or Azerbaijan?

They all seem to manage fine without the attendance figures of Monza (which isn't that high compared to some). Demonstrating that high attendance figures are not necessary for a track.

So - if high attendance is not a must, and attendance has been linked here to history, then history is not important either when it comes to a track adding value to the racing calendar.

If Monza produces good races, then it has a place on the calendar. But that is because of the circuit, not everything in the periphery.

It would be interesting to see what those respective attendance figures are. I'm surprised Brazil and Japan are included in that group. As for the others, I wouldn't be surprised if they receive government money.

[Peter Mallett]

Malaysia is no more because the government found it too costly; Japan has a massive fan base and is always fully booked for the GP; China, Azerbaijan and Bahrain (also add Russia) are state funded.

I suggest a good example of history being important is the French GP. Since it moved to Magny Course its popularity fell away. Now, the resurrection at Paul Ricard has proved significantly underwhelming.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Probably a question to ask the organisers of China, Brazil, Japan, Malaysia, Bahrain or Azerbaijan?

Both Brazil and Japan have full capacity numbers, every year.

It must be remembered that Suzuka Circuit is part of a motorsport resort, with at least one very large hotel within the complex. And all three days of a GP weekend tend to be a sell out, and unlike say at Silverstone, the spectators don't just disappear after the F1 cars have finished. Thousands of them will sit and watch replays of the race on the giant screens well after the racing has finished. And they will spend money in the entertainment and food areas right into the night, some even joining the drivers who often relax in the hotel's bar and club on the Sunday night, which used to be one of Michael Schumacher's favourite activities of the year.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

It would be interesting to see what those respective attendance figures are. I'm surprised Brazil and Japan are included in that group. As for the others, I wouldn't be surprised if they receive government money.

The figures I can find are for the 2016 and 2017 seasons.

Venue	2017	2016	Change
Canada	360000	300000	+20%
Great Britain	344500	350000	-1.5%
Mexico	337043	339967	-1%
Australia	296600	271800	+9%
Belgium	265000	233730	+13.5%
Singapore	260000	219000	+19%
USA	258000	269889	-4.5%
Monaco	200000	200000	0%
Hungary	199000	176000	+13%
Abu Dhabi	195000	195000	0%
Italy	185000	147500	+25.5%
Spain	177984	165029	+8%
Russia	150000	158000	-5%
Austria	145000	85000	+70.5%
China	145000	140000	+3.5%
Brazil	141218	136410	+3.5%
Japan	137000	145000	-5.5%
Malaysia	110604	88828	+24.5%
Bahrain	93000	92000	+1%
Azerbaijan	71541	30000	+138.5%

The table suggests that there is not a clear, direct correlation between history and attendance figures. It also shows that large attendance does not always provide a secure future.

Which goes back to my original point that history should not be important when it comes to deciding if a circuit should be on the calendar (IMO).

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Japan has a massive fan base and is always fully booked for the GP;

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Both Brazil and Japan have full capacity numbers, every year.

Have there been changes to the circuits at Brazil and Japan to explain the different attendance figures year-on-year?

[Peter Mallett]

I think weather forecasts may also impact attendance. Suzuka can suffer quite badly so if the forecast is bad the fans may stay away.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The figures I can find are for the 2016 and 2017 seasons.


The table suggests that there is not a clear, direct correlation between history and attendance figures. It also shows that large attendance does not always provide a secure future.

Which goes back to my original point that history should not be important when it comes to deciding if a circuit should be on the calendar (IMO).




Have there been changes to the circuits at Brazil and Japan to explain the different attendance figures year-on-year?

Can I suggest that the figures might not be accurate?

Silverstone has a capacity of somewhere in the region of 110,000, so this table would suggest that the compiler has included the attendance fro the three days. Except that can not be true, as attendance on Friday and Saturday is well below 100,000 - I would estimate that even half that figure would be highly optimistic.

However, the number of Japan spectators - certainly on the Saturday - is pretty well near the Sunday's capacity. And I am sure that they usually get over 100,000 for the race.

P.S. Just looked it up; Suzuka has a capacity of 155,000, and it's usually sold out for the race.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Can I suggest that the figures might not be accurate?

Silverstone has a capacity of somewhere in the region of 110,000, so this table would suggest that the compiler has included the attendance fro the three days. Except that can not be true, as attendance on Friday and Saturday is well below 100,000 - I would estimate that even half that figure would be highly optimistic.

The figures were released by the Managing Director of Commercial Operations at Formula 1 - and are the cumulative figures over the weekend.
They were compiled from the figures provided by the promoters of each event.

The Silverstone figures are consistent with what was being reported by the circuit back in 2011:

'Richard Phillips, managing director of Silverstone Circuits Limited: Friday's figure was a record at 88,000 [...] Saturday saw a record 105,000 [...] Sunday was also a record breaker with 122,000 in attendance.'

88k+105k+122k = 315,000 The circuit capacity is 155k

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

However, the number of Japan spectators - certainly on the Saturday - is pretty well near the Sunday's capacity. And I am sure that they usually get over 100,000 for the race.

P.S. Just looked it up; Suzuka has a capacity of 155,000, and it's usually sold out for the race.

Other than anecdotally, is there anywhere that confirms the Japanese GP as being sold out in 2016 or 2017?
These images from 2016, whilst showing a healthy attendance, also show a lot of empty seats....

[ScotsBrutesFan]

They say, lies, damn lies and statistics....

Those are just numbers, they do not take into consideration as has been pointed out, single day, average across the three days, combined values. Or whether these are tickets sold, or actual bodies through the gate.

Also in comparing venues then you have to look at what is the capacity, Shanghai reduced it's capacity by covering off seats with large adverts from it's first events.
How can you give a figure for Monaco or Baku, when it's a city event with viewing from private apartments?
Is there local infrastructure issues which may impact on attendance year to year?

Numbers just aren't enough information.

Edit: crmalcolm posted whilst I was typing

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The figures were released by the Managing Director of Commercial Operations at Formula 1 - and are the cumulative figures over the weekend.
They were compiled from the figures provided by the promoters of each event.

The Silverstone figures are consistent with what was being reported by the circuit back in 2011:

'Richard Phillips, managing director of Silverstone Circuits Limited: Friday's figure was a record at 88,000 [...] Saturday saw a record 105,000 [...] Sunday was also a record breaker with 122,000 in attendance.'

88k+105k+122k = 315,000 The circuit capacity is 155k



Other than anecdotally, is there anywhere that confirms the Japanese GP as being sold out in 2016 or 2017?
These images from 2016, whilst showing a healthy attendance, also show a lot of empty seats....

As SBF above says, you can do a lot with figures; furthermore, a lot has happened/changed since 2011.

Sometime after that date, spectator numbers were restricted by Silverstone/BRDC to the 90 thousands, and have only been increased to about 110,000 recently. And I can assure you, having last been to the whole weekend only 3 years ago, that there were nowhere near 88k or 105k on the Friday and Saturday. In fact, I would say that there were actually less spectators on both those days that you would get on the average Sunday of a BTCC meeting.

As for Japan, there may have been spaces in the grandstands, but the banking which extends pretty well all the way around the circuit and has stepped "seating" which is free to general admittance tickets, is always rammed to capacity with standing only at the top of the bank.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The figures I can find are for the 2016 and 2017 seasons.



The table suggests that there is not a clear, direct correlation between history and attendance figures. It also shows that large attendance does not always provide a secure future.

Which goes back to my original point that history should not be important when it comes to deciding if a circuit should be on the calendar (IMO).

Have there been changes to the circuits at Brazil and Japan to explain the different attendance figures year-on-year?

Thanks for the stats but I don't think just two seasons is enough to go on. Attendance figures over a 10 year period, would give a better picture.

As for showing that a large attendance does not always provide a secure future, that doesn't appear to be the case, as non of those tracks with a large attendance has fallen off the calendar. Also, I don't think it's just about having a large attendance per se but a consistent and sustainable attendance. Therefore a track, any given year knows it can anticipate having a good sized crowd, which will bring in the money.

[Skam85]

I was at Suzuka last year and can confirm it was packed.

[hondafan37]

Originally Posted by Purist

And this reverence for storied venues is paralleled in how people view American football and baseball stadiums of historic significance. I imagine you get something similar in Europe with famous, long-standing "futbol" stadiums.

As for the "true fan" thing, I take it as a matter of the measure of a person's investment in the sport. Do you just casually pop in and out, or do you at least gradually, over time, try to become more involved and educate yourself about the sport? And obviously, a key part of that education will include the sport's history.

As to Adria specifically for the Italian GP, no, Monza's atmosphere can't be replicated there. The nature of the venue is far too different for that. Some of the crucial aspects of Monza are that it is a particularly high-speed circuit, with a relatively simple layout, and comparatively few corners. In addition, Monza surrounds and envelops you in a much more tangible way, with the grandstands and pits on the main straight, and the forest of the parkland around much of the rest of the circuit.

Adria is tight, slow, and doesn't have the sort of surroundings, but anyway, for starters, it's too short to be considered as a new F1 venue under the FIA regs; it's only 1.679 miles around, whereas Monza is 3.600. The minimum for F1 is 3.5 km (2.175 mi), but realistically, I don't see them picking any permanent circuit under 4.0 km (~2.5 mi), or any new-build circuit under 4.5 km (~2.8 mi).

So, what Italian venues would be closer to the mark? Well, in terms of length and nature of the lap, there's Enna-Pergusa. It has some of the forest, and with the lake, gives more of a park-like setting. The lap is 3.080 miles, and consists largely of flat-out blasts between chicanes. Now, given that it's shorter than Monza by half a mile, I'd look to consolidate Pineta and Proserpina into a single chicane ahead of that first little sweep before Curvone proper. After that, turn Zagaria into something more akin to Variente Ascari. New pits opposite the main stand would take care of that canyon feeling along the front straight.

Vallelunga is just long enough at 2.538 miles, and the first half of the lap is quite fast and flowing; the lap as a while is quite flowing in terms of corner shape except for Soratte. However, you don't really get the parkland surroundings there; the tree cover is rather sparse overall, even if the nearby hills are kind of nice. Also, the shorter lap coupled with Soratte and those two absurdly tight hairpins means the average lap speed won't be anything special. Furthermore, even with Curva Grande flat-out for F1, the place just isn't going to have that feel of being made up predominantly of long, high-speed runs. And this is all without considering the confines of that last sector and the pits/paddock.

Now to the last other venue to host an Italian round: Imola. Unfortunately, there's still too much chicanery here. The lap is 3.050 miles, again compared to Monza which is 3.600, and Imola still has three chicanes, down from four. However, while Monza just has the Lesmos and Parabolica as the other bits where you have to slow down, Imola has Tosa, Piratella, Acque Minerale, and Rivazza. If you were actually going to get it to a more Monza-esque state, take a look at the 1973 layout. Factor in that Acque Minerale and Rivazza are tighter/slower, but then also maybe swap in the 1995-06 Variente Bassa. And it can be said all a person likes that the chicane at Tamburello is there for good, but to fix the actual racing at Imola, especially for F1, it has to go. The road kinks to the left ahead of the chicane, which screws up an awful lot of any attempted overtakes there, because that kink makes your entry shallower and more acute basically by default. And as for the Monza parallel, it's like if you had a chicane at Curva Grande, which will never go over well.

Finally, there's Mugello. It's the next longest after Monza at 3.259 miles, compared to 3.600. Admittedly, it doesn't have the same flat-out blasts between chicanes thing going on, but average lap speeds should definitely be north of 150 mph, and the track has no really slow corners. The front stretch and section from San Lorenzo to Scarperia provide two quite lengthy, ultra-high-speed runs. And though Mugello doesn't have the forest right around, the hills kind of hem the place in, still providing a very pleasing, three-dimensional surround for the circuit. I think the Tifosi will go where F1 goes, especially with this also being a strong, established venue, to say nothing of the owners. And it's a track that provides a challenge while not having all the extra niggly little bits that so many of the newer circuits have that just seem to get in the way of overtaking.

So with Monza as the benchmark, if I had to rank these four tracks, just the circuits themselves, not really worrying about facilities or current run-off issues atm:
1. Mugello
2. Enna-Pergusa
3. Imola
4. Vallelunga

If I wasn't worrying so much about having a circuit with a nature nearer that of Monza:
1. Mugello
2. Vallelunga
3. Enna-Pergusa
4. Imola

I think Enna would put on a more exciting F1 race than Imola. And Misano has been changed too much exclusively for the bikes since 2006 for me to think it would be a good F1 candidate without basically undoing everything that was done to it.

Imola and Mugello are weighing up potential bids to host Formula 1 in the future for a second race in Italy.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/i...-prix/4538214/