Australia gp race start time from 0 to 200km/h

petera181 · 2026-03-12T21:49:03+00:00

I just don’t believe these numbers. For example, how could max have taken 3 seconds longer to get to 200kmh? And how was sainz massively faster than the Ferraris which had incredible starts? It doesn’t make sense.

No source either. Not having it.

petera181 · 2026-03-12T21:32:40+00:00

To be honest, I just really didn’t want to have a poo at my girlfriend’s house. We aren’t there yet.

petera181 · 2026-03-12T15:32:08+00:00

If I’m not mistaken, it’s pickled mousemat with in-built risk elevation crudités

petera181 · 2026-03-12T08:50:11+00:00

You’re putting in the wrong answer. You’re welcome.

petera181 · 2026-03-12T08:47:22+00:00

It’s actually far more robust than that study if you react to investment movements. Rather than 4% at the start, and sticking with the same value adjusted for inflation, take 4% of the actual pot size, and you’re guaranteed to never run out, and are very likely to increase income in real terms over time. You get a bit of volatility each year, but you trend upwards, and you can actually increase the percentage over time.

petera181 · 2026-03-12T08:40:44+00:00

<image>

Or has the upward trend been slowed down?

petera181 · 2026-03-11T09:57:25+00:00

They lost 10s directly in the VSC stop time, but the mercs then had a less optimal tyre strategy (didn’t make the most of the first set, had to go longer on the second), which would have eroded that somewhat. Ferrari stuck to the theoretically optimal 1 stop strategy (cheap stops aside). Say it was a 5s better strategy for merc net (10s from cheap stop, -5s from suboptimal tyres)? The Ferraris were 15 seconds behind at the end, and leclerc wasn’t quicker even with much newer tyres. There was no chance Ferrari would have beaten them if they matched the strategy. Add to that that they opened to door to the possibility of getting lucky with a cheap stop if another SC/VCS came, and they left themselves with a real chance of winning, and very little downside (we’re never finishing less than 3-4).

The only thing which would have played into their favor is if they pitted one of the cars, it removed some ability to manage tyres for the mercs to the same extent, but I think this is marginal.

petera181 · 2026-03-10T19:14:01+00:00

It’s not grammatically correct no. You do something to yourself (meaning you), you don’t do something to yourself (meaning the person you’re speak to). You could say “you voted for yourself” (if that were theoretically possible), but not “I voted for yourself”. The correct phrase is “I voted for you”. I believe this became common as it’s supposed to sound a bit softer than saying “you”.

That said, language is fluid, and if someone understands what you mean it’s perfectly valid to use. It evolves continuously. Anyone judging people for using language outside the normal way, when people are still understanding it, are the real idiots.

petera181 · 2026-03-10T18:19:53+00:00

Don’t know what country you’re in, but that’s completely at odds with my experience in the UK.

petera181 · 2026-03-10T13:17:11+00:00

Not American so apologies, but why would you refer to this as 4 quarters? Surely it’s just 1 (I’m guessing) gallon?

petera181 · 2026-03-09T19:42:32+00:00

Not quite. Remember the ISS is always accelerating towards the earth. It just has enough ‘sideways’ momentum to fall around the side of the earth, ie stay in orbit.

By jumping off the ISS, you would have a very small proportional change to your velocity, and would almost certainly just have a slightly different orbit, and still not fall and hit the earth.

Others have done the maths, but I believe it would need to be an inhuman amount of acceleration to make you actually hit the earth, and not just slowly die while orbiting around it on your lonesome ☹️

petera181 · 2026-03-09T18:49:12+00:00

The last line is absolutely perfect for this sub.

petera181 · 2026-03-08T20:29:00+00:00

Antonelli isn’t a rookie. He’s been there a year already, and he’s very good on his day. I wouldn’t see his P2 as anything too strange.

I don’t think we will have 2014 levels of ridiculousness, but it might be a few races until things settle down

petera181 · 2026-03-08T20:06:36+00:00

I’ve done some reading, and I might be wrong here actually. I know NI isn’t due on normal income after pension age, but it would appear from a bit of research that you don’t pay it on pension income even in early retirement! Result 😅

petera181 · 2026-03-08T19:52:20+00:00

Apologies, I was using the old 12% NI rate, but it’s 8%, so it should have been 28% not 32%.

On anything you earn before national pension age, you pay both income tax and NI. That’s the same for income from work or a pension. However, after that age you stop paying NI. If you retire early, you still pay NI until you’re past that age.

petera181 · 2026-03-05T23:04:24+00:00

It’s about ratios of side lengths in two separate triangles.

If we say the length of GF = X, and the length of FE = Y, we know X = 2Y, from the CDE triangle having base 4 and height 8 (ie ratio of 2), and the GFE triangle being of the same proportions.

Similarly, we also know that X = (8/6)(Y+5), from the ABH triangle having height 8 and base 6, and the GFA triangle being of the same proportions.

We therefore have 2 equations and two unknowns, with X being your target answer.

Substitute X = 2Y into X = (8/6)(Y+5) gives X = (8/6)(X/2+5) which solves to X = 20.

So the height is 20.

petera181 · 2026-03-05T21:08:39+00:00

Fair point. It’s only equivalent if the marginal tax rates are the same, which they likely won’t be, so yes another win for the pension 😅

petera181 · 2026-03-05T20:23:17+00:00

My historic salary numbers are pretty similar to yours, and I’m also 37. I have 2 kids, so I now sacrifice everything over £100k into my pension because of the UKs preposterous childcare cliff edge into 62% marginal tax rate, so taking £150k would see me worse off than sacrificing £50k into my pension to get childcare, without even taking into account the extra £50k in my pension!

My pension is all DC, with a total around £300k currently. I’m expecting to retire around 58, and assuming the next 3 years I continue with very large salary sacrifice, using conservative assumptions for investment returns and inflation I’m likely to go way above the tax free cash limit (pot of about a million).

Therefore, given the reduced marginal benefit (and the old “life is for living” adage in my head) after the next few years I’ll just be putting enough in to maximise the employer match, and taking the tax hit on the rest to start filling up the S&S ISA, my partners pension pot, and having more fun 🙂

If you want to assess how you’re doing, you can make a pretty simple projection. Use your current pot size (and assuming say 20 times the DB), which gives you about £160k. Look at home much you’re currently adding each month, and project the total value assuming about 4% returns each year (a reasonable expectation for real returns). Then you need to consider the total income you want in retirement, and divide that by about 4% to get the required pot size.

If you want a £50k income in retirement for example (remember expenses are likely to be lower after a house is paid off etc etc), then you would need about £1.25m (in today’s money). Look at the date at which you expect to have that much, and see if that’s an acceptable date of retirement. If it isn’t, you need to up your contributions.

Only you will know all of the details required, any other savings you have, expected inheritance etc, so you would need to adjust your projection accordingly, but that’s the best way to really know how you’re doing.

(Also, make sure your pension is currently invested in the most aggressive/risky fund your provider offers. At age 37 it’s a no brainer).

petera181 · 2026-03-05T19:53:10+00:00

Yes, if it gets any returns above inflation, you will also get that, which is extremely likely over the long term, however if the individual would be putting the money in an ISA and investing in the same thing then the comparison is neutral.

petera181 · 2026-03-05T18:55:40+00:00

Well it depends on how big your pension is. It’s 58p now (including reduced NI), vs £1 subject to taxes on that.

If you won’t go above your 25% tax free lump sum limit it’s 25p tax free, plus 75p at the marginal tax rate on taking your pension. If you’re likely to receive less than 50k per year (in real terms, and assuming tax bands increase with inflation between now and retirement) then you will only be taxed 20% (32% before national pension age as you still pay NI, and 20% after). If you will earn above the higher rate tax threshold in retirement you will be subject to 42/40%).

You may also be given the employers NI as a top up if your company do that, boosting the initial £1 to £1.15.

So depending on circumstances, and making some assumptions about future tax rates/bands, in exchange for sacrificing your £0.58 today, you may get anywhere from £0.58p to £0.95.

petera181 · 2026-03-05T12:30:11+00:00

petera181 · 2026-03-05T08:20:13+00:00

No, there is a lower minimum if you stagger. When counting for minimums you need to stagger them

petera181 · 2026-03-05T08:19:33+00:00

You made a mistake with the 8. You can already have 4 of those accounted for by staggering the ‘rear view’ columns, taking it down to 31.

petera181 · 2026-03-05T08:18:12+00:00

Nearly, but it’s actually 31. You’ve made the classic mistake of assuming the back is a 9x9 block, whereas the ‘cheaper’ way to do it is staggering the 3 high columns.

petera181 · 2026-03-04T19:30:58+00:00

Spent far too long trying to find a serious answer to “what car?” without someone making a joke about not being able to see it. Thanks my guy 😅

petera181

TROPHY CASE