Monza has hosted the Italian GP since 1922 and in that time has come to show F1 in its best light. So why do away with the 'temple of speed'?
Wednesday 9 September 2015 13:21, UK
Hopes that Monza can keep hold of the Italian GP were handed a boost earlier in the summer.
A major sticking point - the Italian government’s insistence that tax is paid on investment funds the local Lombardy regional government are willing to provide - has been unblocked, which hopefully means the deluge of speed, noise and colour, which the place gives like no other, will continue to be unleashed beyond 2016.
If not...well, what an indictment of the current state of F1 that would be. That the French GP has disappeared, for good it seems, is bad enough; but the absence of Germany from this year's calendar takes the feeling - that the sport too readily ignores its history in order to make a quick buck - to a whole new level.
Can you imagine an F1 season without a French, German and Italian GP? We've got two-thirds of the way there in 2015. It's a worrying thought.
Thankfully, the German GP returns next year and even though Monza has been under threat, at least it seems Italian GP never has. Imola and Mugello have both been suggested as potential replacements, even though the former hasn't hosted grands prix since 2006 while the latter has never hosted F1 cars outside of testing.
Imola also hosted the Italian GP in 1980, when Monza was being refurbished. But the latter has otherwise had an unbroken run as host of the Italian GP dating back to 1922. And talk about stalwart: the race that year was held on September 10; this year's takes place on September 6. For some of us, the sight of cars forming on the grid bathed in late summer sunshine - enjoy it while you can, folks - is as much an indicator that autumn is just around the corner as a sharp frost in the morning.
Then there's the racing. It can be argued that the Italian GP at Monza is a poor race, in that it lasts little more than an hour and that there aren't too many strategy options to keep the brain box ticking over. It's a fair point but does rather suggest a common held desire for uniformity: that every race should last at least an hour and a half and feature two or maybe three pit stops. But the whole point about Monza is that it is different. It always was and appears increasingly so with every new addition to the calendar... which is all the more reason to keep it there.
And anyway, since when did duration and complexity necessarily mean better? For some of us, the notion that F1 is chess-like and must be chock-full of tactical nuance and game theory is beside the point. At best, it should be secondary, and a long way behind at that. Behind what? Behind gazing in 'I could never do that' admiration as man and machine do their thing in the most spectacular manner possible. If by spectacular we mean fast, then there's nowhere better to watch than at Monza.
It means racing at its purest and while the addition of chicanes (at Rettifilo and Ascari) in 1972 might have broken up the slipstreaming battles seen in earlier years, Monza remains F1's 'temple of speed'. Peter Gethin's victory the year before remained the record, in terms of average speed, for a full 32 years before Michael Schumacher went faster - 153.842mph - in 2003. Meanwhile, Rubens Barrichello's pole position average the following year - 161.802mph - has yet to be beaten.
It's probably fitting that both records were set in Ferraris, which have won a total of 19 Italian GPs (another record) and raced at Monza since 1949. Mugello might be owned by Ferrari and Imola is named after Enzo Ferrari and his son Dino but that doesn't make their link to Monza any less strong, not least in the eyes of fans. Imaginations worldwide are fired by the fervour of the Tifosi who, when they're not cheering on Ferrari's drivers, jeering opponents and invading the track, have in the past seemingly been able to achieve the desired result by force of will alone. That was how it seemed in 1988, anyway, when just days after Enzo Ferrari's death, his team scored a one-two when race leader Ayrton Senna tripped over a backmarker in the closing stages (adding to the delirium, no doubt, was the realisation that McLaren's 100 per cent victory record that season had just juddered to a halt).
It's the sort of fabled story in which Monza leads the way - and is it any wonder? The place might be a bit tatty compared with newer facilities but it drips with historical significance and meaning. You sense it on TV but, of course, paying a visit gives the fullest flavour - and not necessarily when there are cars on track. If you ever get the chance to visit, and to get a different feeling for the place, go when it's quiet. Try and walk the track if possible, stand at a corner (not forgetting the old banking, of course) when there's no-one else around and try and remember all that's gone on there, good and bad. Maybe the fact it's a park filled with trees means that the air hangs still, but the atmosphere really is something special.
Let's hope, then, that Monza's unique atmosphere gets to blend with F1's for many years to come. Another seven would mark the 100th anniversary of the first Italian GP to be held there.
If not, then another milestone will have been reached on the road marked money. But at least imagination and dreams still cost nothing. Maybe it's the news about the FIA's intention for a faster, more "aggressive" 2017 cars but the mind does tend to wander sometimes - to a sort of parallel F1 in which the cars, the tracks and the racing are as perfect as they will ever be.
Suffice to say that my perfect F1 car would look nothing like the current designs, or the 2017 ones for that matter. Naturally they'd look much better and I think the racing would be better. And where else would they be lapping but at Monza?
