EU calls on F1 to switch to four-cylinder, bio-fuel engines

So are you saying the EU will mandate people not stay up late and instead use video recorders instead of having night races so that they play during daylight in the EU? My point is simply that in the grand scheme of things the energy used to light the track is COMPLETELY INSIGNIFICANT in the big picture. Ad up the energy used to get all the people to the event and it would be a gigantically huge amount more than the energy needed to light the track - or the energy "saved" from biofuel 4-cylinders, for that matter. Also the amount of energy used to go to these far-away places eclipses the amount used on lighting a track too... maybe we should have all races only in the continental EU and eliminate fans from the tracks? I don't mind well thought-out plans to actually do good things, but I despise when stupid decisions or requests are made that will do nothing to further the cause they claim to support. I think biofuel 4-cylinders are one such thing and bit*hing about the energy used to light the track is another, I'm afraid.

Sorry but as much as I think Bernie is a scumbag in many ways, he is the #1 man most responsible for F1 being the giant brand it is today. It wasn't that Bernie just took something already good and put it on TV, he did a LOT to promote it and make it what it is. As for letting teams explore alternative fuels and energy sources - uhhh the FIA is doing that with the KERS thing. Lets face it, the old days of F1 where someone may show up with a jet powered car and another guy with a 6-wheel car and another with huge fans sucking down - those days are over. There is always going to be a theoretically best way and since the engineering is bumping up so close to the theroetical limits of whatever the rules are, there will always be a path that is clearly superior. so if they let them use electric as an option, either nobody will use it or everybody will use it. This romantic idea of teams working late into the night developing whacky ideas that may just work is all in the past - it won't happen ever again, so giving teams the latitude to take multiple approaches just creates huge extra expense. And Max's approach of saying they can use a mechanism like KERS no matter what implementation - that is the right way to do it.

ok, so at least you admit you have a personal bias against night races, so we know the REAL reason you're against them!

 

The other reason is I live in the other half of the world ... and I do enjoy seeing a live race every now and then. I am going to loose this just because Bernie wants to make more $'s from his TV show. Put yourself in my shoes ... you would not be sncking off Bernie as much as you currently do.

I hate what Bernie has done to F1, every year the I question why I still watch the occassional race, and why I post here ... but the love of the old days when real racing almost occurred is still there and keeps my interest going. None of the changes he has implemented in the last 15 years has improved the racing one bit! ... IMO. My biggest regret regarding motorsport is that I can't swap places with my father ... he lived through the best period by far. Yeah sure he did not see every race on TV ... whoopie.
Pete

 

+1 "Money changes everything"

 

It's not like the races are going to be at 4am are they? Surely you will be able to catch live races - and can't you just stay up a bit late or get up a bit early to watch? We have tons of races at crazy hours in the USA - it goes with the territory.

 

True ... just a shame. Bernie wants Melbourne to run at night also for his same TV audience numbers and thus $'s ... will be the end of F1 in Australia I believe.

Pete

 

Did they also suggest that they don't fly in with 20 private jets to the events with entourages and crews of hundreds of people, with their mega-RVs and expansive remote command centers?

 

I was talking generally, not specifically about the US. However, by your own figures the US generates more than 70% of its electricity by burning fossil fuels and that's not sustainable for the same reason - there is a finite supply of all of them.

In the long term that's only the case if the electricity and hydrogen are produced by some means other than by burning fossil fuel. Nuclear is a potential solution, but is not without its problems.

Yes, but there are very few biodiesel cars. Scale that up to hundreds of millions of cars and there is a problem producing enough of that fuel as well. There are already a few places where crops are being grown to produce fuel when what the people need and want is crops to provide food.

That's an argument commonly made by those who are happy to do nothing. But a lot of little things can add up to something significant and unless someone comes up with something that will make a BIG difference we need to look at doing the little things.

 

Are you kidding me? What kind of environmental impact does a limited racing circuit have on the environment? ZERO. This is just another feel good policy measure by the left leaning EU.

 

And on that same weekend IRL cars ran 100% Ethanol. Smells like rotten apple cider.

Racing has always been a testbed that transfers to everyday use. I just hope the future is noisy.

 

My response to ALMS was in reference to this post where you seem to applaud William H who thinks something as scripted and spec as ALMS (American Le Mans Series, the name itself is a contradiction in itself and pure marketing) is better than F1:
http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showpost.php?p=137390325&postcount=48

You have a point with your comment about not tying F1 to petrol engines (as much as I love them over some electric lawnmower). You are right, F1 should always use what is the fastest, because that's the essence of F1.

Regarding night races: I know you hate it when I call F1 entertainment, but it is (yes it is also a sport etc). It lives solely for its entertainment value. If the fans cannot watch the races on TV (forget the 100k at the race, they're just decorum), then there is no point in having commercials, sponsors and car manufacturers in it and hence the sport will die or become some decrepit backyard soap box thingy that doesn't cost much. So - like Bernie's porno show or not - TV viewership is vital to the sport. TV viewership = money to put it bluntly.

Records from past races have shown how dismal viewership is if the race is in the wrong time slot (and sorry again, but you guys down under don't count, neither do we here in the US if that is any consolation, it is all about Europe). Hence the push to night races. It is not about carnage.

From a personal perspective I welcome night races because they will be different and also because it puts the Asian race(s) into a watchable timeslot for myself.

 

Don't "tie" F1 to petrol engines? OK and while we're at it let's reconsider allowing wheels!
If you don't like F1, go elsewhere, there's no need to ruin it for the rest of us.

 

Tifosi12 has lit a light bulb of memory for me. Remember the turbine cars at Indy, particularly Parnelli Jones? Just a couple of comments on that endeavor -

a) It was very exciting to see that weird 4WD thingie put its finger in the eye of the establishment. It was also kind of "right" to see the upstart fail on the last lap. But it was demonstrably faster for this form of racing; a turbine might still be faster today given sympathetic rule-making (like the pushrod advantage). They sure are at Bonneville and with hydroplanes.

b) Almost every casual car enthusiast I know will argue with me all day long that the Parnelli Jones car ACTUALLY WON THE RACE, and that the next year they were legislated out of existence. I said, well true on the legislation, but let's look on Wiki and see who actually won...some still believe the Turbine Car won anyway.

c) I think there was another factor in effectively outlawing turbines. They "sound like vacuum cleaners". That might be OK for one or two cars out of a whole field of roaring piston monsters, but 24 of them?

Now, to put this in modern perspective: What exactly is the main objection to the 4cyl idea as posted here? THE SOUND.
What is the main objection to the diesel at LeMans? THE SOUND. What was one of the points of hate for the steam cars (which did very well in pre WW1 racing, many times beating bigger gasoline cars)? Right again, along with some evil false rumors that the boiler would blow up...

I have another idea - If you want to keep the big high-revviing 12 cylinder cars; but still save race fuel; why not just shorten the race by say 15-20%? They already have a complicated "laps run" rule so this might not be too great a reach.

 

I hope that last comment wasn't directed at me. If there is one thing you can say about me, it is that I'm a total F1 nut. Hook, line and sinker and nothing else for better or worse.

F1 is the pinnacle of motor sports because there is no other vehicle that goes around a track faster than a F1. That to me is the very definition of F1. And the only one. How F1 achieves that isn't up to me to say. It just has to be the fastest. And I hope the loudest.

PS: The need for wheels doesn't have to be explicit. It is the natural solution if you define F1 in the way I just did: Planes are faster but they're no longer tied to the track. And AFAIK there is no faster technical solution than wheels. See how easy that gets?

PPS: Speaking of wheels: I found it very unfortunate that F1 limited the wheels to 4. I loved the various 6 wheeler cars (Tyrrell, Williams, Ferrari).

 

Not directed to you at all.
A 6 wheeled Ferrari? I missed that one. Could you provide an image or a link?
Yes F1 should be the pinacle of motor sport. By definition, it is a formula and so specific limits are inherent. The question is which ones.
The criteria used depends on what the goals are. Personnaly I think that safety of spectators and drivers must be paramount. This usually means a limit on speed. Speed can be limited by either track or car design. For obvious reasons it is easier to dictate changes in car design.
Power equals speed and so limits on power are often favored. Traditionally power has been limited by displacement with all other parameters free. As noted in a previous post technology has also been restricted. Turbines, fans, etc. have all been banned in the name of safety even though cost has been a more likely reason.
Which brings us to money. Before the advent of big tobacco and then big manufacturers and their unlimited PR budgets costs were self regulating. The teams couldn't spend what they didn't have.
Fiat, Renault, Daimler, Honda, Toyota et al find themselves trapped in a spending war and look for external limits to contain their profligate ways. Personally I don't see why the sport should comply. We were better off with out them and if they can't afford to play let them go home.
It won't happen of course. Long ago F1 sold its soul and ceased to be a sport as much as a business.

 

Ferrari 312T2 with 4 rear wheels. I never saw a picture of it, but only the Polystil model that was made (but the car existed).

F1 has always been a series tied to the car manufacturers. While in the golden sixties and seventies the "garagistes" dominated, just look at the roots of the sport and you see major factory involvement: Ferrari, Mercedes, Maserati, Lancia, Alfa etc

I like the fact that today car manufacturers dominate because I look at it as the ultimate battle ground for the car brands. Yes it was cool when small shops could strap a Cossie onto their body, but that time has long gone. F1 lost a lot of its charm, but is more professional, technical and extreme on the other hand.

I'm perfectly fine without cost reducing measures. After all the team that currently spends the most on it isn't really winning.

 

Wasn't Renault that had 4 front wheels 1 year? That was pretty funny looking too.

 

I'll have to check out that 312.
Yes big manufacturers have been tangentialy involved with the sport since its inception, but haver never excercised such total control as they do now save during the Nazi era. Even then the levels of financial support were much lower and it is surely not a time which anyone wishes to emulate.
While F1 almost killed Lancia and Alfa too had to leave Ford wisely limited itself to an initial investment in the Cosworth which powered F1 for years and years with little further investment.
Now McLaren is Mercedes. Ferrari is Fiat. Jordan, Stewart, Prost, BAR, Sauber, Tyrrell, Spyker, Arrows and more have either been forced to sell out to the big boys or die. Do you think that the sport is better without them?
Frank Willams is the last of the true independants and how much longer can he last?
What no one is thinking of is what will happen when the big boys lose interest and walk. If it survives the sport will be better for it.

 

Renault came to F1 after they were banned.

 

Tyrell F1 P34 car had 4 front wheels.

March were the next team to give six wheels a try, but opted for the more logical solution of putting the four wheels at the back and having them all driven for greater traction.

Ferrari also experimented with six wheels - placing four rear wheels on the rear axles of its 312 in 1977, creating the 312T6. This idea had its roots in the pre-WWII Auto union

The Ferrari, like the March, never raced. Some rumours even suggest they even considered with the concept of an eight-wheeler…perhaps the load transporter would have been considered!!!

The final team to experiment with a six-wheeler were Williams. the governing body got wind of the advantage Williams had unlocked the technology was quickly banned.

for my two cents worth......keep F1 at the top of the engineering tree and allow designers, engineers a free reign to exploit everything possible. Even warp drive if they can invent it.

It is what F1 is all about, drivers come and go.

Tony

 

The point of this thread is whether switching to biofuel and 4-cylinder engines is relevant for F1. I made the point that it is not, due to the fact that we will never run out of gas, and that alternatives exist today. You said that "we still burn oil to make the electricity". I pointed out how that assertion is untrue, and now you switch gears to the greater fossil fuel 'issue'? Gimme a break - you're going in all directions here to try to save the point you originally made, which IMO was incorrect.

Ok - as for coal... we use 1 billion tons of coal per year for electricity production. And we have 265 billion tons of reserve. So 250+ years of coal in reserve for electricity production. You'll forgive me if I don't get worried about how we may run out of coal 265 years from now, and should therefore curtail our usage. The sun will burn out in several billion years - ought we to start making space ships to fly us to a new galaxy now? Or can we wait a bit? And yes, I know consumption is not linear - when we are talking > 250 years, that's not relevant.

So 50% of our electric production from coal is not a concern, as is the 30% that does not come from coal - so for the other 20% from natural gas. Well we have 650,000 BILLION (six hundred and fifty thousand billion) cubic feet of natural gas in reserve. We use 1,600 billion cubic feet per year, which means we have over 400 YEARS worth of reserve. We ought to worry about that today also?

Come on - thats ridiculous. That energy production comes from coal is a non issue. That it also comes from gas is a non issue. We have alternatives to both those things today, including solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, nuclear and others. Again, its about cost. Coal is cheap. Thats why 50% of our energy comes from it. At whatever time we start to run short, we can very easily switch to alternative methods. Therefore how the electricity is generated is a complete non issue to using electric cars.

But the "long term" you refer to is between 260 and 400 years from now. How is that an issue that is relevant *today*? As I said, its all about cost. We could bundle solar panels with electric cars and let people generate their own electricity to run their own car. The reason that doesn't happen is cost. Solar cells are expensive. But we *could* do it now, today and stop using oil. The *only* reason we don't is cost. There are no insurmountable technical challenges to doing it - only a financial obstacle. As gas prices rise (as either supply runs out or as consumption increases to the rest of the world and they outbid us for it and cause costs to rise), then other *existing* technologies will take over. There is nothing that has to be invented or figured out - it's already been done. These other technologies will surely get even better than they are today to where we may even switch early if the experience of driving the car is better than that of driving a gasoline one, but even if that doesn't happen, the change will necessarily come as gas prices rise. There will be no chaos, no collapse of the market, no D-day where cars stop running. There will be a slow, gradual and unnoticeable transition over to non-gas powered vehicles and nobody will feel a thing.

And yet again this is a MONEY issue. If I am a farmer and I can sell corn or whatever for more $$ for fuel, then thats what I will do. In the USA we have enough acreage for food and fuel crop production - not a problem. If its a problem in the EU, then use electric cars with hydro, wind, solar, geothermal and nuclear power systems. However you slice it there *is* no problem to overcome - the answers are all there, they just arent in use because of costs and only because of costs.

What are "all these little things" that will add up to something big? Capitalism is a great thing - whenver a problem occurs (read: market opportunity), someone fills in that need. It will likely be 10 or 20 years at least before oil ran out *if* we just kept on doing what we are doing now. 15 years ago was 1993. There was no biodiesel. There were no hybrids, or electric cars, or hydrogen powered cars. Today there are numerous hybrids available for sale, there have been production electric vehicles, etc. Necessity is the mother of invention - so when you consider how much we have now that we don't even *need*, once we really do need it, there will be even more product out there to satisfy the market.

We'll never run out of oil, there is no impending oil-running-out crisis, not now, not in 10 or 20 or 50 years, not ever. We are not behind the curve in figuring out the problem, and we can be happy to just let invention and technological progress go at it's normal rate without trying to force it and we will all be fine.

 

Maybe I missed it but do you give any thought about the environmental impact of burrning all this fossil fuel? While the market may be suited to adjusting for changing economics if we reach a physical tipping point there may be no way it can change things.
BTW I think that the idea of F1 going Bio is laughable.

 

We are stepping into the unknown with global warming if you look at the earth's history it appears it does as it pleases cools and warms, I'am sure human influence is causing a degree of difference, but take the earth temp taken in the US after 9/11 after all planes had stopped flying..... the earth got hotter, why no vapour trails reflecting sunlight my point it is not quite as simple as stopping burning fuel.

Probably better trashed out in a different thread though, interesting as it is.

 

My point was that your analysis, while detailed, can not be considered complete and so does not adress the initial post adequately.

 

David, your post was directed for Mike to address as I'am sure he will be more than happy to complete .

 

Why are you so passionate that F1 has to use petrol engines?

That is the first way to ensure F1 becomes a joke. In 10 years time if F1 is still using old fashioned pathetic petrol engines then that is just sad. In 50 years time there will be family cars powered by God knows what that will piss all over those petrol engined F1 cars ... is that want you want?

Surely not!. F1 is just about SPEED (related to transportation of a person on the ground), not how you do it, should never be about how you do it. The current restricting rules are for Tifosi's TV show bollocks ... nothing but a distraction on the main reason F1 exists, ie. to be plain and simply the fastest, just like chariot races in the Roman days, etc. If Bernie keeps losing focus on this he will kill F1.
Pete