 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coordinates
editI corrected the coordinates of the circuit. The coordinates given are for the start/finish line, taken from Google Earth.--Ciroa 16:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)--
Piquet quote
editHello. I believe the Nelson Piquet quote to be "Driving in Monaco is like riding a bike in your living room". At least, that's the way it's been referred to for ages here in Brazil. Does anyone have the source? Cheers. JimboB 14:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Links
editAdded links to BBC & official F1 site.--Cheetaih (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Gear for Ste. Devote
editBy no means is the Ste. Devote Corner taken in third or fourth gear in a formula one car. listen to the engines after having passed the corner, and you will hear at least five upshift manouvres on their ascent to the casino. Based on the fact that all modern have formula one cars have seven-speed-gearboxes, they pass the Ste. Devote corner either in first or second gear. Do not rely on the 'data' that is given to the press by some teams. they all contain some disinformation. 84.170.179.72 (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- On-screen graphics from yesterday's GP suggest Ste. Devote is taken in second.Mr Larrington (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Lap Record
editNow I've changed the record lap time back to what it was when M. Schumacher had done a 1:14 lap time. That's all fantastic and that but what I'm wondering is why is the record lap times that's performed in race conditions the only ones that count? Mark Webber did do a faster lap time but it isn't the record. If you can direct me to a discussion that bought about this decision then I would be much appreciated. If this is an unspoken rule, it seems a bit weird to me. Antimatter31 (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I see now. Thanx. Antimatter31 (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Sectors
editCan someone explain why the first sector on the course layout diagram doesn't begin precisely at the start/finish line? 99.193.239.8 (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is no start/finish line at Monaco. The start line is much closer, a couple hundred metres closer, to Ste Devote than the finish line. This is in order to accomodate a full grid on such a short straight as the straight in front of the Monaco pits. But you are right in that the article should say this somewhere. --Falcadore (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Hairpin name
editThis new scheme in it the hairpin name is correctly specified: Fairmont Hotel hairpin instead of Grand hotel hairpin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.172.29.42 (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Adverse Camber?
editThe article currently states:
The Rascasse takes the cars into a short, adversely-cambered straight that precedes the final corner, Virage Antony Noghes.
I'm unconvinced that this section is adversely cambered (i.e. higher at the edges of the track than in the centre - as defined at and Cant_(road/rail) and Camber_angle).
Could it be that the intention here was to convey that the (normal) camber is unfavourable to the drivers, since they tend to use the outside of the track at this point (due to shortness of the straight and the preceding and following bends both being right-hand)?
Does anyone have any conclusive evidence that this straight is actually adversely-cambered (as defined)? 86.7.30.217 (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Having driven around the track there, itis inversely cambered (higher at the centre of the track than the edges). Inverse is objective, adverse is subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.49.36 (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
That's also how I remember it, from walking the course, and also from TV coverage (2012-05-26) where the (straight) bridge cast a visibly "humped" shadow. In the absence of any support for it being adversely-cambered, I'm going to remove that claim. 86.7.30.217 (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Criticism
editI've just noticed that this article doesn't mention any criticism against the circuit for producing boring races. I suggest someone should add a section detailing why. Klrfl Talk! 14:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Major Events
editI have removed the support categories from "Major events" for a couple of reasons. List abuse for one, it bloats the size of the infobox. And support categories do not rise to the level of Major Event, nor can they if the reason they exist is to support the actual major event. Please do not list everything possible, simply because you can. Writing concisely is more important than writing exhaustively. -- Falcadore (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- It is also duplicating information listed deeper in the article listing what categories race at Monaco. Don't try to shove everything into the infobox. --Falcadore (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- It is absolutely not different. And "supported" in the context you are using meaningless. Why do you not understand what is major and what is not User:Island92? Is everything major? --Falcadore (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm simply following the practice adopted for each Formula One article circuits. Those are Major events included. Island92 (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- No it's all of them. Why is it difficult to understand? Major is the headline event and everything else is not. It is also not the "practice". It is merely what has incorrectly been done previously. Several circuit articles have been altered already.
- Why would major events mean listing everything? And it is listed below in the article so this is unnecessary duplication. Not only is "it is what we do" not an acceptable answer on it's own, there is specific wikipedia policy against that idea. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS --Falcadore (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- The box acts like a "presentation" for the whole article. F2 and F3 they should be listed, too. No matters if they are reported in the article itself.--Island92 (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Falcadore. Formula 2 and Formula 3, and Porsche Supercup are not "major events", they do not belong in the infobox. SSSB (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- The box acts like a "presentation" for the whole article. F2 and F3 they should be listed, too. No matters if they are reported in the article itself.--Island92 (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm simply following the practice adopted for each Formula One article circuits. Those are Major events included. Island92 (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- It is absolutely not different. And "supported" in the context you are using meaningless. Why do you not understand what is major and what is not User:Island92? Is everything major? --Falcadore (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Why do you list every year in detail and restore "Current"? The years make it obvious what is current and what is not. Please stop doing that. Putting in "-present" tells you it's a current event so you don't have to type it twice. So like I'm doing here where I am I say for the third time that saying something is present is duplicating "Current". And if I point it out a fourth time you might say that's unnecessary repetition. Well so is saying it's Current. --Falcadore (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Circuit length 1929-1972
editThe article currently shows the following in the infobox and the "Layout history and lap records section":
- Original Grand Prix Circuit (1929–1971) 3.145 km (1.954 mi)
- (1st Variation:) Grand Prix Circuit (1972) (chicane in the port moved further away from the tunnel) 3.145 km (1.954 mi)
However other sources specify the 1929-1972 circuit lengths as follows (for Motor Sport, I've done the conversion from miles to km):
| Year | kolumbus | Motor Sport | Lang |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1929 | 3.180 | 3.180 | |
| 1930 | 3.180 | 3.180 | |
| 1931 | 3.180 | 3.180 | |
| 1932 | 3.180 | 3.180 | |
| 1933 | 3.180 | 3.180 | |
| 1934 | 3.180 | 3.180 | |
| 1935 | 3.180 | 3.180 | |
| 1936 | 3.180 | 3.180 | |
| 1937 | 3.180 | 3.180 | |
| 1948 | 3.180 | ||
| 1950 | 3.180 | 3.180 | |
| 1952 | 3.180 | ||
| 1955 | 3.145 | 3.145 | |
| 1956 | 3.145 | 3.145 | |
| 1957 | 3.145 | 3.145 | |
| 1958 | 3.145 | 3.145 | |
| 1959 | 3.145 | 3.145 | |
| 1960 | 3.145 | 3.145 | |
| 1961 | 3.145 | 3.145 | |
| 1962 | 3.145 | 3.145 | |
| 1963 | 3.145 | 3.145 | |
| 1964 | 3.145 | 3.145 | |
| 1965 | 3.145 | 3.145 | |
| 1966 | 3.145 | 3.145 | |
| 1967 | 3.145 | 3.145 | |
| 1968 | 3.145 | 3.145 | |
| 1969 | 3.145 | 3.145 | |
| 1970 | 3.145 | 3.145 | |
| 1971 | 3.145 | 3.145 | |
| 1972 | 3.145 | 3.145 |
which matches this Motor Sport magazine article which says that the original configuration was unchanged from 1929 to 1954 and the circuit was changed in 1955, slightly reducing the length. So I think there's reasonable evidence that it should be:
- Original Grand Prix Circuit (1929–1954) 3.180 km (1.976 mi)
- 1st Variation: Grand Prix Circuit (1955-1972) (chicane in the port moved further away from the tunnel) 3.145 km (1.954 mi)
Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. For what its worth, StatsF1 agrees (pre-1950 and 1952 weren't F1 races so are not included). The track lengths in the article are also unsourced - so I see no reason why we would keep these unattributed distances. SSSB (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- OK. If there are no objections within the next 24 hours, I'll update the article and any necessary race report articles (I think all the race reports already reflect my proposed change, except 1952 Monaco Grand Prix). DH85868993 (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Done. DH85868993 (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- OK. If there are no objections within the next 24 hours, I'll update the article and any necessary race report articles (I think all the race reports already reflect my proposed change, except 1952 Monaco Grand Prix). DH85868993 (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
