Perez admits he needs result after Canadian GP “disaster”

30 comments on “Perez admits he needs result after Canadian GP “disaster””

1. 

   Jere (@jerejj)
   19th June 2024, 6:20

   Whether he gets a successful weekend is another matter, though, which I’m skeptical about, partly because of Ferrari & McLaren’s performance levels.

   I hope the exhibition will, at some point, go to a city I’m coincidently visiting during its stay anyway so that I’d have a chance to attend.

   While I still don’t rule out Sainz accepting Audi’s offer, after all, I also think he’ll become a Williams driver in the end for the same factors, not to mention Williams has seemed his most likely destination for a little while.
2. 

   gDog (@gdog)
   19th June 2024, 6:35

   By my calculations they need another 522 panels for the 1.21 GW they need to make the race interesting
3. 

   José Lopes da Silva
   19th June 2024, 8:34

   What kind of changes should be done to F1 in order to encourage teams to always try hire the two best drivers available?
   1. 

      BasCB (@bascb)
      19th June 2024, 12:35

      Define what pair of drivers is “the two best drivers available” for a team for a start?
      1. 

         José Lopes da Silva
         19th June 2024, 16:31

         Make it like in football. It’s the best drivers available considering talent, results shown, current form, prospective and potencial. The best players available for Manchester City are better than the best players available for Rotherham, given that the best players, given to choose between Manchester city and Rotherham, will choose City.

         This is not as difficult as might seem to some. There are better drivers in the grid than Perez, but Red Bull has no incentive to try them. There were better drivers in 2017 than Bottas but Mercedes had no incentive to try them. I can think of at least two drivers better than Webber in 2012, but Red Bull did not sack him neither after 2011 nor after 2012.

         The incentive is not for the father of the Number One driver to have secret stuff of the Team Owner and blackmailing him not to hire a threat to his son. That’s a repeated conspiracy over the years with no evidence.
   2. 

      ferrox glideh (@ferrox-glideh)
      19th June 2024, 13:19

      Sometimes the sponsorship money that a driver brings makes them the best option for a team (like Sargeant at Williams).
   3. 

      Esploratore (@esploratore1)
      19th June 2024, 14:11

      Giving points based on gaps, instead of positions, remember suzuka 1999? Hakkinen and schumacher were 1 lap ahead of their team mates, 2 top drivers in the same team would give the advantage rather than a verstappen and perez.
      1. 

         José Lopes da Silva
         19th June 2024, 16:39

         That is how the sport currently works. And teams have no incentive to try that. Apart from everything else, it starts with the advantage of avoiding Senna-Prost scenarios which are hard to manage. We would need a radical overhaul of the sport in order for a team to risk a Senna-Prost scenario.

         I remember Suzuka 1999 very well, with fond memories, and it’s unfortunate that you got an example from a quarter of a century ago. If you’re going to tell me that it’s good to have a Hakkinen in case Schumacher breaks a leg, the last example of such is also from a quarter of a century ago. Notwithstading serious accidents, like Massa and obviously the late Bianchi, never after was a title fight disrupted by a crash, like it happened in 1999 and in 1994 before that.
         1. 

            José Lopes da Silva
            19th June 2024, 16:43

            Sorry, I didn’t meant “That is how the sport currently works”; I totally misread what you wrote.

            Do you mean points for Constructors Championship? Because “that” is how it works – teams have no incentive to hire two top drivers to fight for the Constructors Championship.

            (And I’m sure you don’t mean that a drivers points should be dependent on his team mate points, or do you? If you do, that would mean F1 would become a real on-track team sport, like football. Making Verstappen depending on Perez’s points? But that’s an even more radical overhaul that I was thinking, and I’d have to think about it if I’d be comfortable with it…)
   4. 

      Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
      20th June 2024, 23:23

      Make it so every team faces the exact same set of circumstances as each other at all times.

      In reality, different teams need different things, so the perfect driver at one team could be inadvertent poison at another for the exact same reasons. To some extent, I think Carlos is an example of this. F1 is a much more complex sport than football, and football is hardly tiddlywinks!
4. 

   Mayrton
   19th June 2024, 8:40

   The article on Rubens triggered the question with me how Massa is doing in his pursuit to overthrow the historic results? Have I missed how this has unfolded or is there nothing new to report?
   1. 

      Red Andy (@red-andy)
      19th June 2024, 10:53

      No, nothing to report. The English court system has so many delays and backlogs that it will be months, if not years, before any hearings take place.
      1. 

         Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
         20th June 2024, 23:34

         Agreed. There are parts of England where the court system is still hearing cases originally sent to the court pre-COVID, and the average time waiting for a court date (between completing the paperwork to get a court case submitted and the day in court happening) is 230 days. The more complex and high-value a case (the Massa case will be both), the longer that delay is likely to be.
   2. 

      Esploratore (@esploratore1)
      19th June 2024, 14:15

      Yes, I had also checked recently but nothing new, I’m curious how it will pan out.
      1. 

         SteveP
         19th June 2024, 20:48

         Yes, I had also checked recently but nothing new, I’m curious how it will pan out.

         Massa, and his expensive legal team [1], will turn up at court and demand that “justice” be done with regard to the result of the Singapore 2008 F1 race.

         The court will likely, and nothing is certain in the way of a ruling that something could be done, duly rule that the FIA should look to amend the result, in line with rules extant at the time, and thus Alonso would be DQ’d and everyone moves up one place.

         Most people involved will agree that the just result will now sit in the records, and Massa goes home poorer, but wiser.
         The wisdom being that the only true winners are the two legal teams, who collect the money no matter what.

         Sadly for Massa, the one outcome that would make him happy is not in line with the rules extant at the time, nor with the current ones.
         Cancelling the race because one team cheated does not negate the sterling work done by all the other teams, with the exception of the plaintiffs team.

         [1] “Expensive legal teams? are there ever cheap ones?
5. 

   Asd
   19th June 2024, 8:46

   Tell you what: I’ve been recently watching a lot of old F1 races / race highlights and the 1978 F1 season is a true gem!
   The cars were beautiful and beasts, and I love Niki Lauda in the Brabham fighting against the Lotuses.

   Somehow, Lauda is 90% remembered for his Ferrari seasons and 10% for his McLaren years in the 80s. And although the ventilator Brabham is a legendary car, it barely ever gets mentioned that it was Lauda driving it!
   1. 

      Nick T.
      19th June 2024, 13:26

      I had completely forgotten he ever drove for Brabham. So, that’s an understatement.
6. 

   Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
   19th June 2024, 9:36

   When my phone needs as many resets as Perez, I just replace it.
   1. 

      Nick T.
      19th June 2024, 13:29

      lol. Good one. It’d be amazing if one of F1’s commentators said that on live air. Instead, they just prattle on about “the form we know Checo is capable of.”
   2. 

      Esploratore (@esploratore1)
      19th June 2024, 14:17

      Ahah, that’s a good one indeed!
   3. 

      SteveP
      19th June 2024, 20:51

      That is probably the best acid tinged quip I’ve heard or read in quite a while.
      Brilliant. CotD without doubt.
      1. 

         Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
         20th June 2024, 7:26

         Thanks! Proud of that!
7. 

   Coventry Climax
   19th June 2024, 11:33

   Solar power will produce half the daily energy requirements at the Circuit de Catalunya following the installation of 1,080 more panels on the roof of the pit building, according to the venue. This will almost double the existing count of 1,239 panels and add a further 0.46 GWh of energy per year. The track claims to have the largest public self-consumption photovoltaic installation in Catalunya.

   Daily energy requirement? My goodness, what does a circuit use all that electrical energy for, in a spot of the world where clearly, heating is no issue? They plan to run night races only, from now on?

   The number of existing panels implies this is all very exact: 1239. Not 1240, 1200 or 1250. That’s quite silly, given the fluctuation in hours of sun anually already easily makes up for a couple of panels.

   Catalunya has approx. 2400 hours of sun anually.
   An average technology panel gives 400 Wp.
   They had 1239, added 1080 and still need twice that to generate all the energy they need, so 4638 panels.
   In ideal circumstances, those would produce approx. 4.5 GW anually.
   Yet here it’s said that 1080 panels (about one quarter of what they need total) add only 0.46 GWh anually. So their panels do not even yield half of what they can?

   Then, the combination of Giga Watt hours and anually mentions the time component twice?
   Once is for speed, like in km per hour), twice is for acceleration, like in meter per square second. Not applicable in energy.

   They bought ancient technology panels, installed them largely in all the shadow areas of the compound, orientated them North, forgot to incorporate a means of storing the energy collected, or all of the above.

   Most likely though, these figures aren’t correct. But something’s very weird here.
   1. 

      Keithedin
      19th June 2024, 12:19

      add a further 0.46 GWh of energy per year.

      The terminology here is correct. A GWh is a unit of energy, not power. So 0.46 GWh of energy annually means that is the amount of energy the panels will produce in a year. Without mentioning the timescale (a year), the amount of energy mentioned would be meaningless. 0.46 GWh in a day would be a huge amount of energy, but 0.46 GWh in a century would be not very much at all.

      The precise number of 1239 panels was probably a product of practical issues rather than an exact calculation of what they need. Issues like roof space in the correct orientation, logistics of running electrical cables, size of relays, transformers required etc.

      I don’t know where the 400 Watts figure comes from (links for articles aren’t working for me), but it could be a maximum power output under ideal conditions, not an average over the year, which will always be significantly lower. There’s a large amount of research and calculation that goes into a project of this size, so I doubt they have just got their numbers wrong or made amateur mistakes like you’re implying.
      1. 

         SteveP
         19th June 2024, 21:04

         Without mentioning the timescale (a year), the amount of energy mentioned would be meaningless. 0.46 GWh in a day would be a huge amount of energy, but 0.46 GWh in a century would be not very much at all.

         Unless I slipped a decimal somewhere, with both old and new arrays combined it works out to be about 426 (approx) Wh per panel per year
         Or, differently, for the whole array of panels, 987894 Wh per year or approx 987 kWh
         So, 2.7 kWh per day. Which I think means you could use up the whole day’s generated power with a domestic kettle run for an hour.

         It’s been a long day, so I’m probably off on the numbers.
         1. 

            Keithedin
            20th June 2024, 12:58

            I think your maths is a bit off. 0.46 GWh is 460 MWh in a year. That’s is 460/365 = 1.26 MWh in a day. If a kettle is say 3kW, then one day of energy could run 420 kettles for an hour.

            That 460 MWh is the amount of energy generated by the additional 1,080 panels, not the full array. So the total number of panels is 1,239 +1,080 = 2,319. Assuming they all generate the same as the new panels, the total generated by the full array in a year should be 2,319/1,080 x 460 = 988 MWh, so that matches your figure, but in MWh, not KWh. 988 MWh would be 2.7 MWh in a day, so approx. 1,000 kettles for an hour.
8. 

   Coventry Climax
   19th June 2024, 11:41

   OK, maybe shouldn’t joke about this, but couldn’t resist:

   Claire Simpson seems to have DRS installed in her front teeth.
   That’s going to great lengths for an aerodynamicist.
   1. 

      ferrox glideh (@ferrox-glideh)
      19th June 2024, 13:22

      Your initial assumption was correct.
   2. 

      Nick T.
      19th June 2024, 13:30

      Every last hundredth counts.
9. 

   Nick T.
   19th June 2024, 12:40

   Alpine trying to switch to a non-Renault PU, while sounding crazy, is probably a great idea.

Comments are closed.