Ask Nigel Roebuck: May 29

Dear Mick,

Hmmm, a good question! "I think if it were anywhere but in Monaco, it would scrapped as being...out of the question," a Grand Prix driver famously remarked. That was Phil Hill - in 1959...

Anyone who goes to the Monaco Grand Prix to work, rather than simply to spectate, will tell you that it is a pain in the neck without equal. The mechanics hate it because there are no pit garages, as such, and the paddock is on the other side of the track, and the journalists feel the same way - at Monaco almost nothing is convenient, that's the point. As well as that, there are more hangers-on there than at any other race, more people with credentials for no obvious reason, and simply getting around is a damn nuisance, frankly.

At one time, there was far less of a problem, because there was less of everything - including people! - and the self-important little Principality was much less congested, in every way. These days it seems that every conceivable square inch has a building going up on it, and much of the style of Monte Carlo has evaporated. It has become, dare I say it, extremely nouveau riche...

I haven't stayed in Monaco for the Grand Prix for 10 years now. For one thing, I started to find it oppressive and claustrophobic after days there without a break; for another, venture a few miles down the coast - into France! - and all is idyllic: you can breathe, you can get away from the crowds, you can get a table at a restaurant without needing to reserve days in advance...

Most of the Grand Prix drivers choose to live in Monaco, however, for no reason other than tax concessions. If I were earning their kind of money, I'd happily part with more of it to live in Cap Ferrat or Beaulieu or wherever, but clearly gelt comes first, so there's no point in discussing it with them!

However...all that said, I love to watch F1 drivers tackling the streets of Monte Carlo, and I always will. As I write, I'm here for my 34th Monaco Grand Prix, and the attraction of being only a yard or two away from the action is as fresh as ever. No run-offs here, no gravel traps, or anything of the kind: mistakes are punished as they are nowhere else these days. Precision is everything. Thanks to traction control, you don't see the cars exiting Casino Square in lurid opposite-lock power slides any more, but still proximity lends an impression of pure speed you can't find anywhere else.

If, in 2002, someone were to propose an event like the Monaco Grand Prix for the first time, it would probably not even get on to the table at the FIA, but the fact is that this event was held for the first time in 1929, and is part of the very fabric of Grand Prix racing.

That's one thing, but not enough in itself - history, as we know only too well, counts for nothing with the power brokers of contemporary F1. Another, far more important, aspect of the Monaco Grand Prix is its setting, the fact that this place is considered synonymous with glamour, and traditionally the 'Jewel in the Crown', where sponsors throw money around like nowhere else.

And there's your real answer, Mick: the Monaco Grand Prix makes a massive amount of money for a lot of people. And as long as that continues, I venture to suggest that its place on the World Championship calendar is entirely secure.

Personally, I love street races, as I already said, for they have far more soul than the bland autodromes so widely used today. I used to adore the Long Beach Grand Prix, and would be delighted to see it as an F1 race again, although I can't see that ever happening. I didn't much care for the race in Detroit, but the one-off in Dallas - back in 1984 - I thoroughly enjoyed. As things stand, though, I'll be very surprised if we ever see another street race on the F1 schedule, and I regret that.



Dear Luke,

Messrs Yoong and Sato drove historic F1 cars at Monaco primarily because both were new to the track, and saw this as a chance to learn the place prior to the Grand Prix proper. Given that Takuma did his usual number, and parked his Lotus 49 in the fence during practice, I fancy it could be some time before historic car owners feel sanguine about repeating the experience!

As to whether it is 'a trend other modern drivers should follow', I think you might have a problem persuading the stars to climb aboard F1 cars of times gone by. For one thing, there isn't going to be a lot of money in it; for another, whenever they do try a historic car, for PR/publicity reasons, the relative lack of safety tends to weigh on their minds. A few years ago Michael Schumacher drove the 1983 turbocharged Ferrari C2B raced originally by Patrick Tambay, and freely admitted that the experience frightened him. For one thing, back then the driver sat almost between the front wheels, and Michael said he felt terribly vulnerable.

As I said, Yoong and Sato had a good reason to take part in the Monaco Historic weekend, but I don't there's much chance of the stars following suit. If they were to, however, who would I like to see in what? No doubt it, Juan Pablo Montoya and Jacques Villeneuve in Maserati 250Fs!



Dear Trevor,

Yes, the 'white line' story was a good one, wasn't it? In terrible conditions, Nigel was leaving Alain Prost at the rate of two seconds a lap, and I can remember Peter Warr and Gerard Ducarouge (of Lotus) telling me how they were imploring him to back off for several laps before it happened. After parking his bent car at the Loews hairpin, Mansell sat with his head in his hands for some time, and no wonder.

When it comes to 'leaves on the line at Epsom' stories, Nigel is the man who comes instantly to mind, I must admit. One of my favourites came at Montreal in 1991, where he and the Williams-Renault were leading comfortably until the last lap, when the car ground to a halt near the hairpin, leaving Nelson Piquet to win for Benetton.

Back in the pits, Mansell went through his familiar, 'What do I have to do?' routine, suggesting that the engine had 'just died'. That tended to happen, Patrick Head crisply suggested, when a driver was so busy waving to the crowd - before crossing the line - that he forgot to change down in good time for the hairpin, thereby keeping the revs above the point at which the engine would stall...



Dear Richard,

Nothing personal against the Phoenix people, per se, but I think it's an extremely good thing for F1. Quite what a couple of outdated Prost cars, powered by even more outdated engines, steered by a couple of mediocre drivers, were going to contribute to Grand Prix racing, I was never entirely sure. Had they ever managed to find a way into F1, after all, I think it unlikely they would have beaten the '107%' rule, under which, to qualify for a Grand Prix, a driver must lap within 107% of the pole winner's time.

The last couple of 'minnows' in F1 were Simtek and Pacific, both of which disappeared in 1995. At the time I talked to Bernie Ecclestone about that - and about the reasons for introducing the 107% rule for the following season. This is what he had to say.

"I think we'd got a little bit back to the startline specials there used to be years ago. These people get their sponsors to turn up, and they break everyone's balls, saying they don't get seen on TV. The reason they don't get seen is obvious: they're only on the screen when they get lapped. In fact, they get seen more than most people, because they get lapped about five or six times...

"We're the best, right? Formula 1 is the best, and we don't need anything in it that isn't the best. Of course these idiots are saying to me, 'If you had that rule in now, this lot would be out'. 'So what?' is my answer to that. And, anyway, I don't think their argument is right. If you think back to when there was pre-qualifying, some of the people in it used to turn in a time that would put them halfway up the grid. I guarantee you, if we had the 107% rule here, everyone would be in - because they'd raise their game. Why are you going to put your balls on the line to be 20th, rather than 22nd?

"In pre-qualifying, though, they'd set these times, and then hardly ever duplicate them again in proper qualifying. What mattered was they were in.

"The people who are affected by this are the people we think should start getting on with their programme. The 107% rule is in next year, no matter what. And if they don't want to enter for the championship, they don't have to. That's the way it is.

"People are going on about maybe having only 19 or 20 cars in the race. OK, so what? If I got someone who hadn't been to races to look at the grid today, they wouldn't know whether there were 16 or 25. What I want to get away from is breeding people who shouldn't be in Formula 1. Frankly, at the moment there are people in it who shouldn't be in it, and they will admit it, as well.

"Why are they here? Because they thought it was easier than it is. Look at Simtek. This year, they should have known that they were never going to make the whole season. The chances of getting big sponsorship - even if they'd won a race - were negligible. And if they were going to die, they should, in my opinion, have died in a dignified way. They should have pulled the blinds down, and said, 'We couldn't cut the cake. It's a pity, but we did our best, and it was a creditable effort. We didn't estimate properly what it was going to take to get the job done, and we're going to try and come back.'

"What I don't like is people walking around with begging bowls, and crying as if it is everyone else's fault. People who do that we should never have let in in the first place, and it's my fault for allowing them to do it. If they hadn't come in, we wouldn't have had the embarrassment of them going out.

"At least, with Pacific, Keith Wiggins is quite dignified, and if he does disappear, I'm sure he'll do it in a dignified way.

"I think the biggest problem with Nick Wirth of Simtek was that he was frustrated that he'd built a team, built a car, built everything - and probably had a better team and car than some people who did have sponsorship. He was frustrated that he didn't have sponsorship, but - I'm sorry if this sounds harsh - it's not Formula 1's problem, any more than when anyone else goes out of business.

"The size of the field doesn't bother me at all. It is much better for us to have a smaller, better quality, grid, than have a lot of... We're in the quality business, not quantity."

I agree with every word of that, and if that sounds harsh or elitist, or whatever, I make no apology. Bernie is absolutely right: Formula 1 is the best, the pinnacle of motor racing, and we don't need anything in it that isn't the best. I have nothing whatever against 'minnows', but to me they don't belong in F1. When I was a kid, I'd go to F1 races, and see no-hopers dragging themselves round, getting in the way, dropping oil, or whatever, and they irritated the hell out of me. Broadly, I feel exactly the same about it today.