Mugello Testing

[ArrowsFA1]

Some differing views from drivers about F1 being at Mugello.

Petrov - "I don't think we should have come here. It is not safe and wide enough. If you lose it, the walls are so close and you will smash into the tyres. It is not for Formula 1 and, if you lost the steering or the tyre pressure dropped or whatever, then it will be a big crash."

Webber - "Did 10 dry laps today around Mugello, which is the same as doing 1000 laps around Abu Dhabi track in terms of satisfaction."

Kovalainen - "Hardcore circuit. Some proper corners out there."

[gloomyDAY]

"I don't think we should have come here," said the Caterham driver. "It is not safe and wide enough. If you lose it, the walls are so close and you will smash into the tyres. It is not for Formula 1 and, if you lost the steering or the tyre pressure dropped or whatever, then it will be a big crash." Petrov is the only driver who has been critical of the Mugello venue this week, though, with a number of his rivals claiming the circuit is a step up from other venues.
Grow a pair, son!

[pino]

For what I am reading on ital media most drivers are very satisfied about Mugello and would love to run a proper F1 race there...how about replacing crappy Valencia ? ;)

[gloomyDAY]

For what I am reading on ital media most drivers are very satisfied about Mugello and would love to run a proper F1 race there...how about replacing crappy Valencia ? ;) I'd easily wake up at 4am and piss off my girlfriend with a loud TV for that!!

[Tazio]

Everything that I've read with the exception of what Petrov said was positive. I read this on another site:

That and Mugello is an incredible racetrack for spectators. I went there for the MotoGP weekend last year and was blown away. Its in a natural bowl, so you can be close the track and see a good 2/3 of the circuit well, as well as getting the reverberations bouncing everywhere. We turned up on the friday and went to the town by the circuit and were buzzing simply from the noise echoing around the local hills! I'd pay 21.50 to see/hear F1 cars there, no doubt at all!

€21.50 admission to test!

[TheFamousEccles]

I would travel from the other side of the world to attend an F1 race at Mugello. :up:

[TheFamousEccles]

Petrov does make some valid points however, and the track could be made a little safer for these very high speed cars. It would need a bit of earthworks, but it could be done without ruining the track and its ambience - it may reduce the overall "bums on seats" count, but TV is where its at, dadyo. Why would China or Abu Dhabi exist, otherwise?

There is no plausible excuse, the more I think of it, the more I become evangelical about it: Mugello forza F1.

And then there could be an "internal championship", run over selected drivers tracks - for arguments sake Silverstone, Spa, Suzuka (needs money but...), Mugello, Monza? It could be called the Drivers Cup (eh????) - ok I've gone on a bit and lost my mind - time for a beer. :idea: :s pinhead:

[pino]

I would travel from the other side of the world to attend an F1 race at Mugello. :up:

Would do the same to spectate a WRC event in your country ;)

[AndyL]

€21.50 admission to test!

Supply and demand! It's not so long since you could walk into the Silverstone tests for free, but that was when there was no limit on the number of tests. And you didn't necessarily know if the full field would be there or just a couple of back-marker teams.

[Tazio]

Supply and demand! It's not so long since you could walk into the Silverstone tests for free, but that was when there was no limit on the number of tests. And you didn't necessarily know if the full field would be there or just a couple of back-marker teams.

Agreed! I just added that in for context since the quote did not include the "€" ;)

[odykas]

Mugello would be a great place to have F1 races.

No more mickey mouse tracks please :|

[ArrowsFA1]

If Petrov thinks Mugello isn't safe or wide enough I dread to think what he's say about racing at Clermont-Ferrand!!!!

dVvlCXxA_cw

[wedge]

There's been mixed reactions.

Apparantly Mugello is too quick for F1. It doesn't bear much resemblance to other tracks so the teams aren't getting adequate data.

Some teams think test was a huge waste of money and some teams - namely those playing catching up found the test useful.

Teams brand Mugello test a waste of time and money, as Alonso crashesJames Allen on F1 (http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2012/05/teams-brand-mugello-test-a-waste-of-time-and-money-as-alonso-crashes/)

[Malbec]

Apparantly Mugello is too quick for F1. It doesn't bear much resemblance to other tracks so the teams aren't getting adequate data.

Some teams think test was a huge waste of money and some teams - namely those playing catching up found the test useful.

I agree. While I'd love to see a race there the decision to test at Mugello was odd given how different it is to the majority of tracks.

I'm surprised they didn't put a few cones down to make some artificial chicanes to make a few slower sections to test on.

[airshifter]

I can fully agree that the track isn't like anything on the calendar, but it is a spectacular place.

It looks like with some modifications it would be a very unique F1 track, and the view would command top prices.

[ShiftingGears]

Webber - "Did 10 dry laps today around Mugello, which is the same as doing 1000 laps around Abu Dhabi track in terms of satisfaction."

I think that tells us everything we need to know about modern F1 tracks.

[Nem14]

If Petrov thinks Mugello isn't safe or wide enough I dread to think what he's say about racing at Clermont-Ferrand!!!!

dVvlCXxA_cw

Rules for seatbelt anchorages appeared sometime in 1963 to 1965. Notice drivers in the video having no shoulder harnesses.
Protective helmets and overalls also became obligatory in the same time frame.
1968 - Recommendations on seat harnesses. Fire-resistant clothing, and shatter-proof visors were mandated.
1971 - Maximum of 5 seconds for driver to evacuate the car's cockpit.
1972 - 6 point restraint harness required.

[BDunnell]

There's been mixed reactions.

Apparantly Mugello is too quick for F1. It doesn't bear much resemblance to other tracks so the teams aren't getting adequate data.

Some teams think test was a huge waste of money and some teams - namely those playing catching up found the test useful.

Teams brand Mugello test a waste of time and money, as Alonso crashesJames Allen on F1 (http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2012/05/teams-brand-mugello-test-a-waste-of-time-and-money-as-alonso-crashes/)

These may well be very fair points. But this doesn't stop Petrov's remarks about the circuit being, in their way, symptomatic of the corporate blandness that affects much of modern F1.

[ShiftingGears]

Petrov - "...If you lose it, the walls are so close and you will smash into the tyres..."

In my opinion there should be more circuits on the calendar that punish mistakes.

The other alternative is facilities like Fuji, where in 2007 there were drivers running 20m wide of the circuit without any consequence in terms of time lost. In some cases those lines were faster than driving on the actual circuit. That in my mind does not at all represent what the pinnacle of circuit racing should be.

I am tired of sloppy driving being rewarded. Seeing drivers pushing it to the limit with the risk of crashing out of the race is exciting.

[wedge]

I agree. While I'd love to see a race there the decision to test at Mugello was odd given how different it is to the majority of tracks.

I'm surprised they didn't put a few cones down to make some artificial chicanes to make a few slower sections to test on.

It's a bit odd. On paper I'd thought Mugello would be closer to a place like Barcelona or Silverstone - would you agree?

[BDunnell]

In my opinion there should be more circuits on the calendar that punish mistakes.

There should be more circuits in motorsport that punish mistakes. The latest thing to get my goat in other series are penalties for 'exceeding track limits'. If you don't want drivers to exceed the track limits, build a wall. Then they will desist.

[wedge]

Mark Webber retorts:

https://twitter.com/#!/AussieGrit/media/slideshow?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitpic.com%2F9hhmxr

[keysersoze]

Mark Webber retorts:

https://twitter.com/#!/AussieGrit/media/slideshow?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitpic.com%2F9hhmxr

Dubious comment from Mark, IMO.

One could easily argue that weak or practically non-existent circuit standards killed Jim Clark.

[BDunnell]

Dubious comment from Mark, IMO.

One could easily argue that weak or practically non-existent circuit standards killed Jim Clark.

That's a bit of a leap, isn't it?

[keysersoze]

That's a bit of a leap, isn't it?

Maybe I read the tweet incorrectly, but I took his comment about VP as suggesting the Russian wouldn't have the nerve to race in Clark's era. I felt using Clark to prove his point was odd, since Jim was likely killed by shunting into the woods.

Perhaps Mark doesn't remember just how lucky he was to escape death after a horrific design / set-up issue sent his Group C (IIRC) Mercedes leaving the track whilst doing 2-3 gainers into the trees at LeMans.

[Tazio]

http://scarbsf1.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/mclaren_fw_illo.jpg?w=584&h=438


A pretty good read about all the challengers, through Mugello, although there is a lot of launch information. If you follow the links within the site they will direct you to a lot of his newest technical analysis.
Scarbsf1's Blog | Everything technical in F1 (http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/)

[ArrowsFA1]

One could easily argue that weak or practically non-existent circuit standards killed Jim Clark.
With the benefit of hindsight sitting here almost 45yrs later you could argue that, but that's how circuits were in 1968. The circuits were different and attitudes towards racing and safety were different.

p.s. "The cause of [Jim Clark's] crash was never definitively identified, but investigators concluded it was most likely due to a deflating rear tyre." Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Clark#The_fatal_crash)