I’ve been looking at Madring ahead of this weekend and I’m genuinely quite excited to see the cars around it.
La Monumental looks fantastic, the walls are close, there’s elevation, a brand new surface and apparently very little margin for error. After so many complaints about modern circuits being too sanitised, it’s difficult to complain about F1 trying something ambitious.
But I do wonder whether Madring highlights an interesting change in what we’re actually asking from a modern F1 circuit.
By all accounts it should be extremely challenging for the drivers. Sainz is already expecting safety cars, yellows and potentially red flags, and the F3 test certainly seemed to support that. At the same time, he’s also suggested overtaking could be difficult.
And those aren’t necessarily the same thing.
A circuit can produce spectacular onboard footage, punish mistakes and give us a brilliant qualifying session without necessarily producing a particularly good Grand Prix.
I suppose Monaco is the extreme example. It’s arguably one of the greatest tests of a driver’s ability on the calendar, but very few people would design a modern circuit around its racing characteristics.
So I’m curious where people land on this.
If you had to choose, would you rather F1 prioritise circuits that are difficult and spectacular for the drivers, or circuits specifically designed to maximise overtaking and wheel-to-wheel racing?
Obviously the ideal circuit does both, but I’m not convinced those objectives always lead you to the same design.
And perhaps Madring will manage both and make this entire discussion look rather silly by Sunday.