2023 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix - Imola [Cancelled]

[vorticism]

All told it is pretty uncommon.

[Zynerji]

Time for a quick 2 day test in Barcelona this weekend?

Interesting idea, but the circuit is already booked:

https://i.postimg.cc/k45717Kd/image.png

Jerez it is!

[Wouter]

When was the last time a GP was cancelled? (Ignoring 2020.)

.

Which Formula 1 races have been cancelled in the past?


- 1955 - GPs of France, Switzerland, Spain and Germany

In June 1955, there was a tragic accident at ................

- 1957 - GPs of the Netherlands and Belgium

As a result of the Suez crisis in 1956, petrol and oil prices .............

- 1969 - Belgian Grand Prix

- 1985 - Belgian Grand Prix

- 2011 - Bahrain GP

- 2020 and 2021 - Various GPs

.
article with the reasons

[chrisc90]

I seriously cant see it getting re-arranged.

Out of all the spare weekends between now and end of season in Abu Dubai there is 6 weekends it could be run.

11th June
6th August
13th August
20th August
*1st October
*12th November

Can rule out 12th November which is between the Brazil and Vegas GP. Same with 1st October which is between Japan and Qatar.

So your only really left with 4 possible weekends it could be run. It looks like they like to leave 2 weeks between GPs in different regions of the world, so the August dates are probably the best option, leaving 3 dates after Belgium on 30th July and before Zandvoort on 27th August. Of course then you have the road freight issue with a 1100km's trek between Spa and Imola and 1400km's between Imola and Zandvoort, which both dates unrealistic for teardown, road travel, and re-assembly for the road freight guys. So only realistic date would be the 13th August, which falls in the summer shutdown. Game over.

[Just_a_fan]

It’s a 100 year flood (except it may reccur even sooner for reasons…)

Exactly. "1 in 100" doesn't mean "it only happens once in 100 years", it means "the likelihood is that it will happen 1% of the time". So one could have 3x 1-in-100 year floods in short order, and then nothing for many years.

Right, but for just understanding the magnitude and how rare it is for the area.

More common that they perhaps ought to be:

Paolo Billi, a professor at the University of Ferrara, has studied Italian river hydrology and sediment transport. Acknowledging that these floods were destructive, Billi noted this type of event is not unusual in Emilia-Romagna or across the broader Italian landscape.

“The frequency of flash floods has increased throughout the last two decades,” Billi said, adding that the recent event fits the mold of such floods. These events are characterized by high-intensity rainfall over the course of several hours, sometimes affecting a very localized area. The 24-hour rainfall amount can equal 25 to 50 percent of annual precipitation, according to Billi. “In many cases, the negative effects of intense rainfall are exacerbated by urbanization and river channel narrowing that take land away from the river corridor,” he said.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/image ... e-in-italy

[vorticism]

When was the last time a GP was cancelled? (Ignoring 2020.)

.

Which Formula 1 races have been cancelled in the past?


- 1955 - GPs of France, Switzerland, Spain and Germany

In June 1955, there was a tragic accident at ................

- 1957 - GPs of the Netherlands and Belgium

As a result of the Suez crisis in 1956, petrol and oil prices .............

- 1969 - Belgian Grand Prix

- 1985 - Belgian Grand Prix

- 2011 - Bahrain GP

- 2020 and 2021 - Various GPs

.
article with the reasons

+1 That's helpful. So a span of 16 years after '69 and 26 years after '85.

[PlatinumZealot]

When was the last time a GP was cancelled? (Ignoring 2020.)

China due to covid in 2023?

Ignoring covid, Russia 2022 due to the invasion of Ukraine.

Prior to that I don't know.. maybe have to go back to 2011?

Bahrain in recent times due to civil unrest I think.

[PlatinumZealot]

Give up peeps. There is no on track action till Monaco. More time and budget for teams for upgrades. Bit of a loss of income though.

[dialtone]

Serious question time now. Is this a 100 year flood, or what kind of event is this for the area?

It’s a 100 year flood (except it may reccur even sooner for reasons…)

Exactly. "1 in 100" doesn't mean "it only happens once in 100 years", it means "the likelihood is that it will happen 1% of the time". So one could have 3x 1-in-100 year floods in short order, and then nothing for many years.

This is actually a 284 year recurrence event. And it seems they had 2 of those in the span of a month.

Given all the expansion basins are sized for 100 years events then there's little hope to contain this. Simply impossible.

My wife works in the rivers field, and has a degree in this topic too (river restoration environmental engineering specifically).

These 1 in 100 events are more based around the hydrology plan and volume of rainfall cumulative over time rather than probability of it happening, and are constantly updated as new events happen of course.

In all likelihood due to climate change, all global governments will need to adjust the sizing of these infrastrustructures to avoid similar events in other areas. Clearly there's a trend of increase in rainfall faster than the hydrology model can adapt to.

To bring it all back electrification and efficiency have to be at the forefront of F1 even if just as marketing for new technology that manufacturers can say is f1 derived. Tires warmers being an example of an active conversation, bad as they may be, need to be abandoned. F1 need to be better at logistics and organizing shipping from baku to miami, back to italy isn't good either when we go back to usa later.

[AR3-GP]

It’s a 100 year flood (except it may reccur even sooner for reasons…)

Exactly. "1 in 100" doesn't mean "it only happens once in 100 years", it means "the likelihood is that it will happen 1% of the time". So one could have 3x 1-in-100 year floods in short order, and then nothing for many years.

This is actually a 284 year recurrence event. And it seems they had 2 of those in the span of a month.

Given all the expansion basins are sized for 100 years events then there's little hope to contain this. Simply impossible.

My wife works in the rivers field, and has a degree in this topic too (river restoration environmental engineering specifically).

These 1 in 100 events are more based around the hydrology plan and volume of rainfall cumulative over time rather than probability of it happening, and are constantly updated as new events happen of course.

In all likelihood due to climate change, all global governments will need to adjust the sizing of these infrastrustructures to avoid similar events in other areas. Clearly there's a trend of increase in rainfall faster than the hydrology model can adapt to.

To bring it all back electrification and efficiency have to be at the forefront of F1 even if just as marketing for new technology that manufacturers can say is f1 derived. Tires warmers being an example of an active conversation, bad as they may be, need to be abandoned. F1 need to be better at logistics and organizing shipping from baku to miami, back to italy isn't good either when we go back to usa later.

Why not power the tire warmers sustainably?

It's a bit of an oxymoron to have motorsport, then try and make an argument about conserving resources...F1 is an exercise in wastefulness. The fast cars that Mercedes and Ferrari and Mclaren want to sell are advertisements for wastefulness. We have to get past this charade. F1 should build it's product based on what is good for the sport. I'm not saying they should be reckless, and burn coal at the circuit...but you get the idea.

Ban of tire warmers (or not), should be based on what is good for the show, not a shallow argument about being green, when tire warmers themselves can be powered sustainably. I bet they could even use waste heat from the paddock....

[dialtone]

Exactly. "1 in 100" doesn't mean "it only happens once in 100 years", it means "the likelihood is that it will happen 1% of the time". So one could have 3x 1-in-100 year floods in short order, and then nothing for many years.

This is actually a 284 year recurrence event. And it seems they had 2 of those in the span of a month.

Given all the expansion basins are sized for 100 years events then there's little hope to contain this. Simply impossible.

My wife works in the rivers field, and has a degree in this topic too (river restoration environmental engineering specifically).

These 1 in 100 events are more based around the hydrology plan and volume of rainfall cumulative over time rather than probability of it happening, and are constantly updated as new events happen of course.

In all likelihood due to climate change, all global governments will need to adjust the sizing of these infrastrustructures to avoid similar events in other areas. Clearly there's a trend of increase in rainfall faster than the hydrology model can adapt to.

To bring it all back electrification and efficiency have to be at the forefront of F1 even if just as marketing for new technology that manufacturers can say is f1 derived. Tires warmers being an example of an active conversation, bad as they may be, need to be abandoned. F1 need to be better at logistics and organizing shipping from baku to miami, back to italy isn't good either when we go back to usa later.

Why not power the tire warmers sustainably?

It's a bit of an oxymoron to have motorsport, then try and make an argument about conserving resources...F1 is an exercise in wastefulness. The fast cars that Mercedes and Ferrari and Mclaren want to sell are advertisements for wastefulness. We have to get past this charade. F1 should build it's product based on what is good for the sport. I'm not saying they should be reckless, and burn coal at the circuit...but you get the idea.

Ban of tire warmers (or not), should be based on what is good for the show, not a shallow argument about being green, when tire warmers themselves can be powered sustainably. I bet they could even use waste heat from the paddock....

I get your argument and banning tire warmers won't solve climate change, but it helps sending a message. IMHO It's a reductio ad absurdum to go from "tire warmers waste energy" to "then all of F1 wastes energy so let's not worry about it in F1". F1 is a product that needs to adapt to more global audience, because they are looking to expand their business in that way. Younger generations are overwhelmingly concerned about this topic as just about any poll shows (here's one https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... r-factors/ ). If they want to stay relevant and continue to expand their audience they need to show their image as sustainable.

Can they power tire warmers sustainably? I agree with this point entirely actually, what I think is complicated is the guarantee. FOM isn't the organizer of the GP, they are the franchise, they already ask for tens of millions from the organizers to run the race at their track, do they have the clout to impose energy sourcing to be sustainable and predictable under any condition in any country they operate in? Do you think they will go to Bahrain and say they won't run there unless all of their track power doesn't come from oil/coal plants?

There have been enough advancements in fusion power where we may actually see it begin generation of power in 2028, or in the 2030s. In all likelihood we might get close to be sustainable from the electric power side in the next decade, at which point I will want my tires as close to 130C as possible.

[AR3-GP]

This is actually a 284 year recurrence event. And it seems they had 2 of those in the span of a month.

Given all the expansion basins are sized for 100 years events then there's little hope to contain this. Simply impossible.

My wife works in the rivers field, and has a degree in this topic too (river restoration environmental engineering specifically).

These 1 in 100 events are more based around the hydrology plan and volume of rainfall cumulative over time rather than probability of it happening, and are constantly updated as new events happen of course.

In all likelihood due to climate change, all global governments will need to adjust the sizing of these infrastrustructures to avoid similar events in other areas. Clearly there's a trend of increase in rainfall faster than the hydrology model can adapt to.

To bring it all back electrification and efficiency have to be at the forefront of F1 even if just as marketing for new technology that manufacturers can say is f1 derived. Tires warmers being an example of an active conversation, bad as they may be, need to be abandoned. F1 need to be better at logistics and organizing shipping from baku to miami, back to italy isn't good either when we go back to usa later.

Why not power the tire warmers sustainably?

It's a bit of an oxymoron to have motorsport, then try and make an argument about conserving resources...F1 is an exercise in wastefulness. The fast cars that Mercedes and Ferrari and Mclaren want to sell are advertisements for wastefulness. We have to get past this charade. F1 should build it's product based on what is good for the sport. I'm not saying they should be reckless, and burn coal at the circuit...but you get the idea.

Ban of tire warmers (or not), should be based on what is good for the show, not a shallow argument about being green, when tire warmers themselves can be powered sustainably. I bet they could even use waste heat from the paddock....

I get your argument and banning tire warmers won't solve climate change, but it helps sending a message. IMHO It's a reductio ad absurdum to go from "tire warmers waste energy" to "then all of F1 wastes energy so let's not worry about it in F1". F1 is a product that needs to adapt to more global audience, because they are looking to expand their business in that way. Younger generations are overwhelmingly concerned about this topic as just about any poll shows (here's one https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... r-factors/ ). If they want to stay relevant and continue to expand their audience they need to show their image as sustainable.

Can they power tire warmers sustainably? I agree with this point entirely actually, what I think is complicated is the guarantee. FOM isn't the organizer of the GP, they are the franchise, they already ask for tens of millions from the organizers to run the race at their track, do they have the clout to impose energy sourcing to be sustainable and predictable under any condition in any country they operate in? Do you think they will go to Bahrain and say they won't run there unless all of their track power doesn't come from oil/coal plants?

There have been enough advancements in fusion power where we may actually see it begin generation of power in 2028, or in the 2030s. In all likelihood we might get close to be sustainable from the electric power side in the next decade, at which point I will want my tires as close to 130C as possible.

All reasonable points (I thought this would be harder ). In my opinion, tire warmers are one of the most non-topics of topics in F1 viewership. Most people have no clue how much energy they use. They are practically invisible. So it's seems a bit cheap/shallow to use it as a pin-up for F1's green image. How about real changes like not having a spaghetti calendar and not having a calendar with 25+ races and so on. Where are those real hard decisions to reduce F1's impact on the environment? Or shall we continue using tire warmers as a pin up and telling teams they have to use hard tires in a qualifying session which are are just red herrings designed to distract the layman, like a bird to a shiny object...It's pathetic of FOM. To resort to these red herrings that interfere with the quality of the show just to promote a green image.

[.poz]

[NL_Fer]

Wish they would do a Simrace instead, that would be fun.

[Wouter]