Errr..... You do realise that F1 as a motor racing category belongs to the FIA don't you? What Liberty Media bought were the commercial rights to put on races and to sell the coverage around the World. Contrary to popular belief, they didn't actually buy the motor racing category F1. Think of it this way: Liberty Media are basically much the same as a production company that has paid a lot of money for exclusive rights to show F1 on TV. They have the rights to show the sport, but they do not have the rights to tell the FIA what the technical or sporting regulations should be - Those are set by the FIA because F1 is their sport. They can make suggestions to the FIA as to what they think will sell F1 around the World the best, but the FIA is under no obligation to implement the suggestions. Were "F1" to split from the FIA, then whatever design of cars they decided to run, and to whatever regulations they decided to run to, it wouldn't be F1 any more because it would not be sanctioned by the FIA, and the F1 Championship is officially: The FIA Formula One World Championship. Something else to bear in mind is what the power-unit suppliers want to supply. Currently we have Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault and Honda supplying the power-units. Now as I understand it, Renault and Mercedes pushed to have the hybrid motors in F1, so if it is suddenly decided to go back to V8 or V10 engines, you can more than likely kiss those two suppliers/teams goodbye (Leaving Red Bull, Toro Rosso, Williams and Force India without a power-unit/engine supply). Ferrari might stick around, but there again, with the threat of losing their annual bonus, and the fact that they don't really need F1 in order to sell cars any more, they too could decide to call it a day with F1 (Leaving Haas and Sauber looking for a power-unit/engine supply). Honda? - Let's face facts here, their last foray into F1 was crap, and their return to F1 has been crap (and embarrassing to the company!), so would they stick around to supply "old technology" V8's or V10's to all the teams? - My monies on no, they wouldn't. And added to all of that, yet again I will point out that motor racing circuits around the World are having more and more restrictions on the amount of noise they are allowed to make, due to "noise pollution". Even Le Mans has a 110dbA limit these days. Liberty Media need to be a bit careful with the flexing of their muscles in F1. If they p:censored:ss enough people/teams/manufacturers/organisers off, they could end up having paid $4.4 Billion for the rights to show what is little more than GP2 racing!
It's human nature, it seems, to resist to change, because we feel comfortable in what we know and we fear the unknown. But technical advancement has to be seen as progress. Putting more bums on seats is not progress, but making engines that are more fuel efficient is an achievement. The fans are often told what to like, in music, entertainment or even sport. The public should not always be listened to; often, it doesn't even know what it wants!
I believe in the past I've said plenty of times now that engine tone/note is important, absolute loudness isn't. Yes loudness helps. The amount of times I've stressed the monitary issue , yet all you people see is ''oh he wants loud engines''. > > > more further on Le Mans is held for a 24 hour period and has many night events in the week leading up to it. It's right next to a couple of towns. It's somewhat expected they've got a noise limit! F1 is held during day time (with the exception of Singapore), the 3 days the event takes place, during daytime, should be fine whatever the noise level. Even Zandvoort has a number of noise limit free days, and that's full of lefties and whinging idiots that decide to live next to race tracks that have been around for 70 years. Liberty has to be really careful what they do next, if they let the funny walking Frenchman dictate the rules by his agenda, they've paid 4.4b for what will be a glorified Formula E with 3 cylinder generators! I can see Merc leaving at the next big rule change whatever is prescribed. Renault always returns. Honda I can see leaving based on their shocking performance. Ferrari leaving? Give me a break. No matter the amount they've said it, I don't think they can actually leave. They'll lose a lot of credit. They've been promoting themselves as Formula 1 this, Formula 1 that since day 1. Leaving will be stupid. The next set of engine rules should be simpler so that teams aren't reliant on manufacturers willing to spend 100s of millions on an engine that they don't understand. An independent engine builder should be able to build and sell them a reasonably competitive engine, and not run a giant risk of going under. Whether it's a twin turbo V6 with KERS system, or a 4 liter V12 (Also with KERS), one thing is for sure...cost has to come down significantly, which means the complexity has to come down. If they go more complex they'll risk alienating fans even more, and at that...manufacturers. I don't think Renault can actually risk putting a huge amount of money up again creating another **** engine. Ferrari and Mercedes aren't going to supply the entire grid. And with that we actually reach a point William made a few times....''what will we have, Ferrari and Cosworth supplying the entire grid? That's ridiculous!'' Except now we cross out Cosworth and write in Mercedes. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcmKJ5MhDh[/ame] I'll leave you guys with this...it's a 1.5 V6t, 2 turbo's this time. It's rev limit was under 12K actually, less than what current cars do at the moment. It sounds great if you ask me, and is not spastically loud. Crucially the turbo's are simpler, not powered by electronics and has less harvesting thingies on there, and of course that extra turbo. If the next engine is a step into this direction that'll be great.
I tend to agree with you, and so do most of the true F1 fans who were at the track. F1 formula should be , box 3 metres wide by 3 metres long by 1 metre high .... 3 litre capacity, no super or turbo charging ...... no external wings (body used as aero) ...... use whatever engine design you want
It wouldn't be the socially responsible choice given that most of world's power grid is run off fossil fuel.
That could be your problem: being STUCK in the past. F1 isn't a formula of the past though, it's supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport, at the vanguard of automotive technology, more or less, and not a museum circus. I would expect F1 to be at least as advanced as the cars in the street. You think you believe in the past, but in fact, you are quite selective of what you want to keep, and what you accept from the present. There is always historical racing ...
There is also a lot of effort to be made to change that, and switch to renewable energy. I suppose that you don't believe in that either? Do you know that some countries run almost uniquely on renewable energy? That's a political choice. Reducing air pollution caused by road transport is something that I welcome. Next, we will concentrate on air transport and maritime transport too. There are already electric aircraft, do you know? These are new techniques that we should embrace instead of resisting and wanting more noise and more fumes that kill us slowly.
Define soon, and based on what? Certainly not soon in the US. 17M cars sold last year 63% are trucks and SUVs 170k electric HALF of those electric cars sold in CA because of state specific legislation Donald Trump is the president... You are looking at decades, and the subsidies, laws, and incentives would be much better spent to produce clean/renewable power rather than the facade that is the electric vehicle. The guy near me with the Tesla and the license plate "COALPWR" gets it, the one with the license plate reading "1PLANET" sadly, does not.
They are going to be short short races that for sure. Batteries can't put out the level of performance that racing demands. Not lap after lap after lap. Electric cars have very limited range... and almost no range when pushed hard. Also, there isn't enough lithium. We are going from a finite resource to an extremely finite resource. Weve got a long way to go. id bet on hydrogen sourced fuel or fuel cells. After all the automakers just signed a 10 or 12 billion dollar pact to pursue it.
Why would you assume that? I just think it is asinine to give people and companies incentives to buy and make electric vehicles in countries which do not have renewable energy...like the US...the world's 2nd largest car market. But do I think there should be a sharp cut-over? Absolutely not. But you better start with the power first, not by increasing the load on the dirty grid by pushing cars which will increase load. Sure. But the reality is that, on the whole, the planet is still powered by fossil fuels. Just China and the USA, also coincidentally the two largest car markets in the world, are mainly fossil fuels. China uses more coal than any other country in the world. So if you increase the amount of electric vehicles, you have not actually made an impact on the cause you seem to care about. But we aren't really. We are just transferring the pollution from the cars to the plants. Sure, that might help certain densely populated cities, but the pollution will still make an impact somewhere and on someone. Electric vehicles make a lot of sense with clean power (provided they can regulate mining and recycling properly)...there just isn't enough clean power save a few concentrated areas. You're missing the point. The point is that the electric vehicles are not helping the problem at all in many areas of the world.
Once again, you are only thinking about America. It's different in other parts of the world, and America finishes by catching up with it in the end! IC engines are seriously under threat in Europe, with already 2 countries planning to phase them out completely within the next 15 years. Yes, it's driven by government legislation to observe the pollution limits accepted by most countries in the world. Are the USA exempted from pollution limits? Or are they burying their head in the sand? Most of European constructors think in terms of electric cars very soon, and those who want to sell in Europe do the same: China and Japan, Korea, etc... I don't know a Korean, Japanese, Chinese or European car makers that hasn't a plan to switch to electric power in the next 10 years. Most have already electric vehicles, or hybrids, and plenty on the drawing board. Trucks and SUVs are not the majority of vehicles in Europe and China, but they are ideal to be electric powered: being heavy vehicles, the impact of batteries weight will not affect them greatly.
The US have plenty of renewable energy potential, that they don't bother to harness because their governments are just puppets for the big oil companies! Renewable energy is a political choice. Everywhere there is wind power, ocean tides, rivers flowing, sun, there is renewable energy; it's as simple as that! It's not rocket science!
I'm not sure how soon but things are changing fast Trump or no Trump(although the Trump train has luckily slowed the shift)... Believe me, I hope I'm wrong and you're right... Battery tech is advancing at a very rapid pace and that pace will only get faster in the next several years as more R&D money is thrown in that direction. I'm not saying that an all electric F1 would be faster/better racing, I'm only stating that I would not be surprised to see it move in that direction (it already is with hybrid PUs). After seeing the recent rapid shift in the world political climate (to the left) and the world green movement of the past 10 years, nothing will surprise me at this point. Hopefully I'm not going too much into P and R with my comments here...it is difficult to separate the two issues. I agree that hydrogen sourced fuel or fuel cells could jump ahead of battery power.
There is just no good excuse for that. Here are 2 leading superpowers, that can't even emulate far smaller countries in clean energy production. Instead of kowtowing to the oil companies, encouraging drilling and promoting fracking, the USA should be at the forefront of energy science. It's a really bad show... Advanced countries should lead the way in tackling air pollution and help developing nations to do the same.
Thanks and well put. My point is that battery powered vehicles are not the solution and will not be. They will be a flash in the pan stepping stone. They are the Laser Disc. Don't believe me? Look into Panasonics press release regarding its battery technolgy. Panasonic is Teslas partner in battery R&D and production. They have stated that they do not posses the technology that Musk demands for the cars. That lithium batteries can not physically do what he is asking and forecasting. Why does everyone ignore it? They are in love with the feel good Tony Stark. Lithium isn't the answer, not only is it toxic, its finitie, not only is it toxic and finite... it doesn't have the capacity to do what is going to be asked of it. With a 50% market share of the car market... there will only be 6 years or so left of lithium supply. We are trading one shortage for another .We are trading one toxic source for another. We are trading coke for pepsi... its going to get you fat and probably diabetes either way. Hydrogen, is likely going to be the answer. it is the most abundant resource in the world and they by product is water. It is so clean we have to add minerals back to it to make it drinkable. The major manufactures haven't gotten behind electric cars not because they are paid off by big oil... its because they know that its not the solution. They have done the math. Also, racing produces too much of a strain as does pulling heavy loads. Electric pick up trucks are going to be a tough thing. Plus battery packs only get so many cycles before total replacement. Its a problem. Also, seeing as they have just discovered that carbon emissions can be turned into ethanol in only one step and even at room temperature... the by product we have been fighting... might just be its saving grace... http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a23417/convert-co2-into-ethanol/
I'm pretty sure you are the one obsessed with America. Like your prediction that VW was a witch hunt by the Americans and everyone was cheating. ...or maybe the guy I'm replying to lives in the same state as me, so that's the point I'm speaking to - since our world is what is around us. You are missing the fact that I'm actually criticizing America's energy policy. Once again, you are only thinking about Western Europe; which is actually quite small relative to the rest of the planet. Just look up the power grid composition of most countries of the world. Nope - not most; the minority actually. Again, totally missing the plot. If you don't clean up the grid, electric vehicles transfer the pollution elsewhere. The net effect is not positive and, in fact, is likely negative vs something like modern diesels when you take into account mining and recycling. China's power grid is the largest consumer of fossil fuels in the world. China is the largest car market in the world. Sounds like a recipe for more pollution. Europe - yes. China - no. See above.
The reason is that people have bigger problems and we have a choice. You can choose not to like that answer, and that's fine, but until it is an urgent threat, no one is going to demand change in large numbers. That's my take. I mean we had how many people marching with no apparent agenda other than being pissed off women after Trump was elected. How many people marched for the environment? Some I'm sure...which got no coverage and made no impact. Not saying you have to like it, but I honestly think that's the case. Organizations like Green Peace, as just one example, are laughed at here in the states by the majority of Americans. Matters aren't helped by extreme positions on both sides of the argument which are further dramatized by a media looking for ratings and not to report objectively. ...then you have Obama posing with the Chevy Volt like that accomplishes anything. Barf.
The Chinese are well aware of that now, and want to change it. It's actually government policy to cut transport pollution, and they are investing to do that. They also invest heavily in research to reduce their reliance in fossil fuels for energy production.
Air pollution isn't a big problem? It's the biggest threat we are facing! People may laugh at environmentalist pressure groups, because they are seen as killjoy and pessimistic, but you laugh at the problem at your peril, I think.
William, with all due respect and highest regards, but this planet we live on goes thru temperate/climate cycles as evidenced in ice cores(10's of thousands of years) or in million yr. old rock. Its violent when these climate changes happen and they just don't come and go but they stay around for awhile. Whether mans existence has sped up this process or we try to slow it down....the inevitable will happen and seas/oceans will rise dramatically as well as the opposite during an "ice age."
I am talking about the quality of air we breathe in the major cities of the developed world. Our streets are full of cars, hardly moving in traffic, but emitting noxious fumes that are harmful to our health. I know that people don't believe about man-made climate change, but that's not what I am on about here. Even in my lifetime, I have seen the increase of volume of cars (the majority of them with IC engines) belching CO2 and particles that we ingest. London, just like Paris or Brussels or any other towns actually smells exhaust fumes. Respiratory afflictions, asthma and lung diseases are now common, that hardly existed 2 or 3 decades ago. That's what I am talking about, not some fanciful theory, and this is the result of the internal combustion engine burning fossil fuel. Surely we have the responsibility to stop it.
got it. Then electric vehicles should be implemented on those areas while leaving the the rural areas the option to buy IC engines in parts where smog and congestion is not rampant in different parts of the globe.
