Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Perez was taking the pi55...so far back and just lunging at the apex. How many times did he have to take to the run off, let alone force the other guy wide?

Romain pork chopped it again last night? But at least he was close enough to Dan to take alunge as he was right there....just messed it up. Perez was just sailing up the inside knowing others woudl jump out of the way rather than be punted. He had several goes at Kimi so good on Kimi for cruising up to the apex

how many times did Perez take the run off while trying to pass? once that I recall on Kimi. End result - no harm, no foul. Big deal. Monaco is an exceptionally difficult place to pass... lol at "just lunging for the apex" - hitting the apex isn't exactly bungling it all up! And any pass under brakes is a big lunge anyway...

Perez made good clean passes on Alonso and Button there, fully alongside under brakes and made the turn no problem, as did Button on Perez. The second attempt on Kimi wasn't going to work anyway - he wasn't far enough up alongside. Kimi didn't need to run him into the wall in the braking area. Kimi wasn't turning into the apex, he was just squeezing Perez into the wall. I guess Kimi wanted Perez to evaporate into thin air or something, because when you're fully committed & braking on the limit you can't stop any harder if the other guy fails to leave a car width in the braking zone. That was Kimi being a douche, not Perez.

post-15659-0-58594100-1369625803_thumb.jpg

Edited by hrd-hr30

Perez wasnt far enough up the side for Kimi to be required to give him room. In this case you are allowed to take the racing line. Perez knows this and should not have been trying to push into a gap that was forever going to close

Perez's move on Alonso was borderline but I think they got it right. All Perez's other moves werent. The move on Button, while legal etc, was stupid from a team perspective. He was driving the track like it was Bahrain, not Monaco. McLaren need to rain him in a bit I think

perez is on a mission to prove a point that he's better than Button.

well not anymore after last nights performance.

a well deserved last place for the stunt you pulled on Kimi ya idiot.

although his pass on Button, was good, but i still hate him.

kimi to stay at Lotus for 2014, kick out grosjean and take in Webber.

Grosjean to....

massa to.....

maybe they just go to GT racing like kobyashi

lol

Massa's crash was a technical failure, not a driver error...

Perez wasnt far enough up the side for Kimi to be required to give him room. In this case you are allowed to take the racing line. Perez knows this and should not have been trying to push into a gap that was forever going to close

that's nowhere near the racing line! Once he's committed, he can't stop any harder. Leaving no room for a car between you and the wall is only going to end in a collision. Perez can't evaporate into thin air. You can't run somone off the road in a braking area if there is an overlap.

Edited by hrd-hr30

Even so, there was no need for him to have another go after the chicane.

While I cant say it was smart for Kimi to turn in as hard as he did, I dont think he is to blame. Perez was trying the same move he pulled off on Button, from way to far back.

It all just means the closest contender to Vettel has just lost alot of ground in the WC. Lucky Vettel didn't win the thing

I'd be happy to see Kimi at Red Bull, if Vettel wasnt there. Having said that, the Lotus I think is the stronger car right now, and Lotus I think has taken over from Red Bull as being the 'fun' team of F1 at the moment.

The Grosjean crash, I'm interested to see the in-car footage. It seems a rather odd incident

The racing line is the other side of the track. The Merc is coming from the racing line in this first pic. And this is where Kimi starts squeezing Perez.

Once Perez was going down the inside he was braking on the limit - the laws of physics says he can't "slot back in". To do that he would need to brake harder than he already is, which is simply not possible. There were a couple of little pinches of lock-ups from the fronts as it was.

Also added an in-car pic showing Kimi "somewhat" closing the door. Not sure how narrow he thinks a McLaren is, but he got it wrong.

Perez wasn't in far enough to claim the corner, but he is entitled to room on the straight! All Kimi had to do was leave room there and turn-in to make the apex at the right hand part of the chicane and he keeps his position. If Perez hits him while cornering like that it would be Perez's fault. When Kimi runs him into the wall, quite obviously before the corner, there is nothing Perez can do to avoid it.

post-15659-0-08506700-1369634699_thumb.jpg

post-15659-0-94336800-1369634726_thumb.jpg

Edited by hrd-hr30

After much analysis, i apportion this 60/40 (kimi/perez)

Almost even responsibility, but kimi has clearly taken a very shallow apex with a disregard for the width of a competitor in a strange attempt to hold position

No penalties are required, just some of the fun that is Monaco

Who doesn't like like a bit of biff

Kimi absolutely squeezed him. He was never going to get it done on that lap from where he was trying. Kimi did increase the likelihood of contact but Kimi needed to do something otherwise he was just going to launch silly attack after silly attack until they ended up in a proper crash or just a comedy of being forced off the track. So I think Kimi tried to pull his chain by waltzing up to the apex. Not the racing line but is free to take the corner as shallow as he wants as the car with track position.

I rate Perez for having a go but it was LOOOSE...and I personally think he is driving like he has nothing left to give and is desperate to try and get a turn of speed. Strange as early on he was nowhere which is to be expected in new car and team but now is driving like he wants to go into the wall again and miss Canada for a second time

Kimi Raikkonen has hit out at Sergio Perez after his "stupid move" in Monaco cost the Lotus driver vital points in the Championship.

"It was a really disappointing day," said Raikkonen.

"Because of one stupid move from Sergio we've lost a lot of points to Sebastian in the Championship and you can't afford to lose ground like that.

"He hit me from behind and that's about all there is to it.

"If he thinks it's my fault that he came into the corner too fast then he obviously has no idea what he's talking about.

"It's not the first time he's hit someone in the race; he seems to expect people to be always looking at what he might do, then move over or go straight on if he comes into the corner too quick and isn't going to make it without running into someone.

"Not the ideal weekend but there's nothing we can do about it. At least we got one point back at the end."

Perez, however, believes Raikkonen was to blame for the accident.

"It was risky, but there was nothing I could to avoid the crash," said the McLaren driver.

"I overtook Fernando and Jenson in the same place, so at the end of the day you have to give some space.

"If you look at the accident I hit the wall on entry of the corner, so Kimi gave me no room at all and there was nothing I could do to avoid it.

"If someone could have avoided the accident then it was Kimi and not myself.

"At the end I was very unfortunate when I overheated the brakes, so that was main issue.

"I tried my best during what was a very difficult race. It's racing, sometimes things come off, sometimes they don't."

http://www.planetf1.com/driver/18227/8737937/Raikkonen-hits-out-at-Perez

Romain Grosjean has been hit with a grid penalty following his accident with Daniel Ricciardo at the Monaco Grand Prix.

Grosjean was handed a 10-place grid penalty for the Canadian Grand Prix.

His Lotus team-mate Kimi Raikkonen was also in hot water after the race for exceeding the prescribed speed during a Safety Car period, but he escaped with just a reprimand.

http://www.planetf1.com/driver/18227/8736986/Grosjean-slapped-with-grid-penalty

Monaco GP: Ferrari puts Felipe Massa's crash down to car problem

"Today's accident looked very similar to what happened in the third free practice session, but in fact the two incidents are very different," said Fry.

"Unlike yesterday, it seems that today's incident can be attributed to a problem on the left front corner of the car.

"It's too early to say precisely what happened and in the next few days, we will try and ascertain the exact cause back in Maranello."

Team boss Stefano Domenicali added that Massa's participation in the next Formula 1 race in Canada in a fortnight was not in doubt.

"Fortunately, despite the violence of the impact, he is fine and has already gone home and I believe that in the space of a few days he will back in perfect shape and ready to race in Montreal," said Domenicali.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107707

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
    • @GTSBoy out of the cubic mile of crude oil we burn each year, I wonder how much of that is actually used for providing petrol and diesel.   From memory the figure for cars in Australia, is that they only add up to about 2 to 3% of our CO2 production. Which means something else here is burning a shit tonne of stuff to make CO2, and we're not really straight up burning oil everywhere, so our CO2 production is coming from elsewhere too.   Also we should totally just run thermal energy from deep in the ground. That way we can start to cool the inside of the planet and reverse global warming (PS, this last paragraph is a total piss take)
    • As somebody who works in the energy sector and lives in a subzero climate, i'm convinced EV's will never be the bulk of our transport.  EV battery and vehicle companies over here have been going bankrupt on a weekly basis the last year. 
    • With all the rust on those R32s, how can it even support all the extra weight requirements. Probably end up handling as well as a 1990s Ford Falcon Taxi.
    • Yes...but look at the numbers. There is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of Joules available, compared to what is used/needed. Just because things are "possible" doesn't make them meaningful.
×
×
  • Create New...