Sergio Perez, Force India, Yas Marina, 2015

Perez backs Aston Martin squad for Daytona 24 Hours

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Sergio Perez backs Aston Martin’s Daytona 24 Hours squad.

Tweets

Comment of the day

After two years with F1’s quieter turbo hybrid engines some fans still have mixed feelings about the change in sound:

I’m one of those fans who miss the screaming engines.

I lived a few kilometres from an F1 circuit. I really miss that immense noise starting on Friday morning, which stopped the city and started F1 discussions.

I miss the screaming sound when watching it on TV; and don’t understand why a sound engineer can’t resolve that (unless FOM/Bernie Ecclestone does not want it to be resolved).

But when attending a race, it bothered me for 5 minutes, it kept me wondering for another 10, and after that I loved the fact that earplugs were no longer needed. Also now I’m amazed by all the other (tyre) noises I can hear, which reflect the amazing pieces of machinery these F1 cars are.
ColdFly F1 (@Coldfly)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Louise.1987!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Giancarlo Baghetti, the only driver to win a round of the world championship on his debut since the first race in 1950, was born on this day in 1934. He died in 1995.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 36 comments on “Perez backs Aston Martin squad for Daytona 24 Hours”

    1. Sergio Perez himself will not be driving. He’s apparently just sponsoring the team, or something. His brother is one of the four drivers, along with two others from Mexico.

    2. Perez is not racing, he is just a partner.

    3. Er, I don’t think he is. I’ve seen multiple articles about Pérez’ partnership with AMR, and none of them actually say he’s driving (even though the titles are incredibly misleading). According to Autosport: “Perez will be a partner in the project rather than driving the car.” Which is, of course, a colossal shame.

      Oh, and Merry Christmas to all!

      1. As you say, the header is completely wrong given that the article Keith has linked to quite clearly states that the driver line up does not include Sergio Perez. The actual driver line up given in that article is Ricardo Pérez de Lara, Antonio Pérez (Sergio’s brother), Santiago Creel and Lars Viljoen.

        1. ‘Quite clearly’ is certainly stretching it don’t you think?

          1. @john-h, in the article, it is stated that “The TRG-AMR entry will feature Mexican drivers Ricardo Pérez, Antonio Pérez, Santiago Creel, and the team will also be joined by British endurance driver Lars Viljoen.”, whilst also stating that the reason why Sergio Perez has become involved is because he is “interested in promoting Mexican drivers seeking to compete in sportscar racing in North America”.

            To me, I would have thought that it would have been apparent from those comments that Sergio’s involvement was in terms of a promotional and managerial capacity, not in terms of driving.

    4. Cyril’s statements make no sense. He criticises the distribution of funds between chassis and engine during the Red Bull partnership but I fail to see why Red Bull should have pumped more money in.

      Red Bull fund the drivers, the operation staff, the marketing, the R&D of the car chassis and the media circus. Renault provide an engine that they get to badge. Red Bull didn’t purchase that engine as a customer because they allowed Renaults other business partners Total and Infiniti to adorn their race car with branding. What funds are Renault complaining were being distributed to the engine? They already had zero cost on the chassis development, their only job was to develop an engine which was their business decision. And hell Red Bull even tried to pay for assistance in that bringing in Ilmor.

      And their solution now is to not only pay for the entire development of the engine still, though now with Red Bull as a paying customer, but to also fund the full team in an era where Mercedes and Ferrari are spending more than ever.

      I don’t foresee Renault making their way to the front of the grid again like the mid 2000’s, and though they had to share the credit with Red Bull when they were winning surely shared credit for winning is better than all the credit in the midfield?

      1. @philipgb, well said! Couldn’t agree more.

    5. ColdFly F1 (@)
      25th December 2015, 0:19

      Thanks Keith for the great site and the honour of COTD.

    6. It’s really good to see currebt F1 deivers racing in other categories.
      It’s the only chance we get to see any sort of comparison between them.

      Such a shame the LeMans24 won’t be possible this year for F1 drivers.
      I think FOM doesn’t see it, but having F1 drivers in other categories, actually raise awareness of F1.

      Imagine having a few drivers doing LeMans, Bathurst, Indy500? It would be amazing.
      We don’t really think about it, but in Australia for example, lots of people follow the V8 Supercars, but don’t follow F1. Having an F1 driver there, could bring those “geeks” to our side as well.

      FOM is just milking old cows and not thinking about getting new calves.

    7. Bit of a misleading headline, as Pérez is not actually going to be driving the Aston Martin in Daytona. All he’s done is bring in some Mexican sponsorship and drivers.

      1. Dang… I was hopeing he would pull a nico and win it.

        1. If he managed an overall win in a GTD car (the slowest class of four classes), that would be more impressive than Nico’s win! Would be interesting to see him do Daytona or Sebring in a Prototype though. This could be a hint at things to come.

    8. And contrary to his boss’s comments, Hamilton added: “Nico’s job is not in jeopardy and neither is mine.”

      Toto hasn’t issued a warning; he’s simply stated that if things get bad, he’d be forced to do something about it. Which is HR 101. Again, the media spinning controversy where there is none.

      1. They could also put in Pascal and Ocon and win it.

      2. lol Hamilton commenting AGAIN on Toto’s warning (he hasn’t shutup about it since Toto spoke). So…… how much have we heard from Nico again about this topic??? Keep digging Lewis :-)

        1. And how long are we going to have to suffer your blatant and pathetic anti-Hamilton agenda?

    9. merry christmas ALL. god bless.

      1. @sato113 Merry Christmas to you too, Lewis Hamilton!

    10. Toto tries to buy Wehrlein a seat with four million.

      Indonesia brings ten to get Haryanto a seat.

      Toto says they are destroying F1 because they are bringing that sort of money.

      Toto, didn’t you try to use money to get your driver a seat? You know, over others? Isn’t that doing the exact same thing?

      1. At least Pascal has 2015 DTM title in his CV.

    11. I’ve liked the idea of F1 going back to the old days where there was a set engine capacity and manufacturers could have as many or as few cylinders as they wanted.

    12. Strictly speaking Perez is driving the car. Just not that Perez. ;)

      1. Good one :-) … these Perez’s have the right stuff so brace for ‘Perez takes a win at Daytona’

    13. TheF1Engineer (@)
      25th December 2015, 8:26

      With the engine, I sincerely hope we end up with a 1.6L V6 turbo, with MGU’s in each wheel and loss of the MGU-H. I say this for the following reasons;

      1. I find it highly unlikely the works manufacturers will want to change the ICE architecture.
      2. MGU-K’s can, in rather crude terms I must admit, be “bolted on,” allowing you to separate the ICE/hybrid system.
      3. This allows independent engine manufacturers to make the 1.6L V6 turbo aspect no problem.
      4. Moving to the “K” all round permits and increase in electrical power from the 120kW we have now, to somewhere around the 300kW mark. For me, a 300kW architecture is a no brainer, pushing the hybrid message even further, and allowing teams to reach the 1000hp mark that so many people love, but doing so in a “green” way.
      5. Moving to 300kW allows a direct transfer of R&D between F1 and FE, only encouraging further manufacturer involvement, giving in effect 2 formula’s for the price of 1, in which they can demonstrate/hone their technology.
      6. There are plenty of battery-powered engine manufacturers about. Separating out the hybrid system, F1 should be encouraging these companies to get involved. Williams do the batteries for FE for example. There’s no reason Williams couldn’t develop their own hybrid system off the 4 motors in the wheels and justify that investment off the back of F1 and FE involvement.
      7. Motors in the wheels allows you to exploit negative torque, torque vectoring, 4-wheel steering etc, all of which will have a dramatic improvement on lap times, and contributes directly to the road and everyday driving conditions.
      8. It’s relatively easy/cheap to adapt the K to work off all 4 corners of the car. And the list goes on…

      The only loss as I say would be the “H,” but I feel some common sense needs to take place here. Here you have something that is a phenomenal piece of engineering, but it is also phenomenally complicated, and phenomenally expensive. All engineering has to take place within an economic reality, otherwise if engineer’s had their way, everything you and I use everyday would be made out of all kinds of things from the far end of the periodic table.
      In losing the “H,” you’re talking of losing 30-40hp (rough Merc figure) out of the hybrid system, but you’re then going for a motor in each wheel and a resultant increase to 300kW. All-round, all things considered, that is by far a superior set-up.

      Adopting this, you can then leave it alone for years on end, allowing teams to justify investment as a result. Yes, you may want to increase the kW going forward, or move to a kind of e-turbo/e-booster system, but in the 4-wheel motor system, this is all inherently achievable as it is an inherently more adaptable and flexible hybrid system to begin with.

      In closing, I sincerely hope these guys see the light. I get the impression they’re starting to. Honda were the only one’s opposed to losing the MGU-H, but have recently floated the idea of motors in each wheel, so hopefully a trade off can be done where we lose the H in favour of the K’s, and then the numerous pro’s that DO exist with hybrid technology can actually be brought to the forefront and this whole engine fiasco laid to rest.

      Done right, hybrid technology can have a massively positive influence on all things F1. Let’s hope we get to see it…

      1. I agree with all of this.
        But I want free electrics too, ABS TC steering assist by torque vectoring but also electric induction braking ie like Scalextric when the control is shunted.
        Obviously heat may become an issue with because we dont really want very high voltage so in turn that would mean I sq R losses ie heat. So we need supercooling to raise efficiency to allow very much greater current density without loss.
        Fatter tyres and movable front flaps. Max proposed much of what you mentioned in his cost capped regs which were unfortunately never taken up. (Including motor/recovery on each wheel and my variable front flaps for braking and turning.

        1. TheF1Engineer (@)
          25th December 2015, 12:46

          Fatter tyres are all well and good, but if Pirelli balls up with the tyre pressures, we’re back to square 1. What we’re actually after with the wider tyres is a bigger contact patch, but as I say, if we have to run the tyres to such a pressure that that contact patch is sufficiently diminished, all we’re really doing is adding drag resistance to the car.

          It is for this reason that I for 1 am always screaming for more tyre testing. Tyre physics is notoriously difficult. Tyres are 1 of the most complicated and definitely THE most important aspect in the design of your car. It is entirely ridiculous that F1 does not do more tyre testing.

          There is an alternative to just plain ditching the MGU-H that I should add aswell, and that is to ditch just the “M” component, so you end up with a “GU-H.” In other words, you are no longer using it to spin up the turbo (you can do that from elsewhere in the hybrid system), it simply harvests off the engine at all times the engine is running.

      2. Lol.. MGU-H is the real inovation here. Overall M-AMG engine is now nearly the most efficient Internal combustion engines in the world. Only large ship engines surpass it.

        I wish my 4 pot had anywhere closeto sameefficiency as current engines.

        Any moving away from this technology for me would be a great R&D loss. Manofacturers seem to agree with this position. And the sooner we get MGU-h on real roads the better. Especially since MGU-H does not need expensive. Heavy batteries like Mgu-K.

        1. TheF1Engineer (@)
          25th December 2015, 16:20

          Everyone’s entitled to their opinion. But how about some facts?

          Mercedes – have suggested abandoning the MGU-H
          Renault – have suggested abandoning the MGU-H
          Ferrari – have suggested abandoning the MGU-H
          Honda – would like to keep the MGU-H, but have also proposed the 4 motors approach
          Toyota (LMP1) – don’t run MGU-H, by choice
          Audi (LMP1) – chose not to run MGU-H, following copious amounts of R&D, decided pursuing weight saving etc was a better, more cost-effective idea
          Porsche (LMP1) – run a GU-H, no M.

          So why the Lol? The worlds most pre-eminent road car manufacturing groups are all represented here. If it was that great a tool, why aren’t they all using it, or why are they prepared to forego it?

          I’d love to read your reasoning…

          1. @goonerf1, in the case of the WEC, there is a vital difference in the regulations – unlike in F1, where energy from the MGU-H can be transferred to the MGU-K system, the regulations in the WEC outlaw that and therefore remove much of the advantage of having a MGU-H.

            1. In F1, both the MGU-K and MGU-H charge the same energy store; that energy goes back into the MGU-K.
              In the WEC, where used, both the MGU-K and MGU-H charge the same energy store; that energy goes back into the MGU-K.
              So no, it isn’t against WEC regulations to feed power from the MGU-H into the MGU-K, as it goes via the energy store.

              Want to know the real reason no-one uses MGU-H in the WEC? Simple: other energy recovery systems are more efficient, cheaper, and more reliable.

          2. I was told by a current F1 engineer last year the MGU-H is expected to be an area that will see significant performance gains because unlike the MGU-K how much energy it can harvest & how it uses that energy is completely unrestricted.

            The MGU-K cannot generate more than 160Bhp for 33 seconds a lap, The MGU-H can generate as much power as they can get out of it for as many seconds over a lap as they can run it. Its where Mercedes have the biggest advantage, where Honda have there biggest weakness & where Ferrari made there biggest power unit gains between 2014>2015.

            The MGU-H as its currently configured is the one area on these power units that is truly interesting from an engineering & technical point of view for those reasons. The ICE is fairly straightforward & the MGU-K is largely known technology thats driven by the limitations of the battery… The MGU-H on the other hand is genuinely interesting & something that the engineer’s are all genuinely excited about.
            The public faces of the manufacturer’s like Toto Wolff can say what they want about keeping it or dropping it, But I guarantee you that if you asked the people who are actually working on the power units & who really understand the benefits of the MGU-H none of them would suggest removing it & the reason Honda are so against it is because the public face on Honda who attends all the engine meetings (Yasuhisa Arai) actually speaks to the engineer’s & understands it all because he himself was once a part of the engine R&D team & has a far better understanding of the technology than some of the others who represent the teams & engine people in public.

    14. Are we really talking about All Wheel Drive (4 MGU motors one each wheel etc) F1? That’s it i’m done. Disgusted doesn’t even begin to describe what I am feeling hearing that.

      1. EF1, why are you so violently opposed to such an idea?

        1. Because he’s against anything that doesn’t fit his extremely narrow definition of F1

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.