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

My sentiments exactly William, it's another spec series.
I remember when the environmentalists were saying the
world was getting too cold now it's too hot, I guess next
it'll be just right. It's all about money, now everything is
green this, green that,and F1 is no different This too will
die down eventually. F1 should always be about pushing
the limit, not be restricted by B.S.

 

Pete,

what happened to you? I never thought you were a tree hugger.

The night race idea is simply brilliant and going to be a huge hit. Hopefully there'll be many more to follow.

Applauding ALMS over F1 because F1 is a spec series? Hello! Ever read the guidelines for ALMS? THAT is a spec series. And one that even a "spec" F1 can drive circles around. Why not applaud the Toyota Grand Prius series? Geez.

 

That will undoubtedly happen and it will happen quite slowly. Look at the UK compared to the USA. Same oil supply, radically different price. We drive big Chevy's, Fords, Caddillacs and SUV's. In the UK a 3 liter engine is considered huge, whereas in the USA it's small. But as the price rises, there are other built in "circuit breakers" to the price of oil that kick in and change the landscape. Oil from ANWR is expensive compared to middle-eastern or (even better) Venezuelan oil, but at $10/gallon it's a bargain. The investment required for hydrogen or electric is huge - but compared to $15/gallon gas it's more cost effective. We're already seeing the beginning of what happens in europe with economy being a more important thing here in the USA with $3-4 gas. The Prius is a hot seller here. Hybrids are hot. There have been production electric cars produced also. 10 years ago such things were crazy to think of - today nobody would think twice about seeing a hybrid Prius, it's normal. The ratio between traditional gas powered cars and new-energy cars will happen slowly and we won't even really notice it until one day we'll see someone driving a traditional gas powered car and smile about the old days when such things were common.

Its just how capitalist markets operate. Running out of oil isn't like the sun blowing up where there is a fixed date that it will happen. Market forces will provide us with a solution and a soft landing, just as it has done with every change that's occurred. Can anyone think of any resource who'se demise has happened abruptly and led to chaos? Hasn't happened, won't happen with oil. We'll never run out - I suspect there will be plenty of oil for the rest of time, because we'll be weaned off that particular crack pipe long before the reserves available start to come close to being tapped out. When I was a kid in school I remember hearing how we would be out of oil by 1990 or whatever it was and back then too people who didn't understand capitalist markets (not referring to you) predicted doom and gloom and chaos.

 

Price is based on demand (and supply). As demand rises, price goes up. As price goes up, it makes alternative energy mechanisms cost effective that previously were not cost effective. Nobody wants to pay $3/mile for electric if they can pay $1/mile for gas. If gas goes up to $2/mile to operate and looks to be rising, then the guys who can do electric for $3/mile will start figuring out if they can get that down to $2.50 or even $2, and when the crossover occurs we'll mostly be driving electric. Before the crossover the greenies will already be switching and politics may push us that way even faster!

But like I said I think Max with KERS is the right solution in a racing environment - not 4-cylinder engines and bio fuel.

 

Maybe you haven't completely thought it through?

What about all the people who would be watching at night with lights-a-burnin' who will now be able to watch during the day with their lights off... how do you know we're not talking about a net SAVINGS of energy here?

Knee-jerk enviro-whining to the extreme Pete!

 

Oil is a finite resource, there is only so much available and, by definition, it will eventually run out unless we stop using it. The same goes for coal, natural gas, and every other non-renewable resource the planet has. When that will happen is, of course, debatable, but it will happen.

You have faith that 'the market' will provide a solution to the problem but I don't believe it's that simple. It's a 'market' issue only if the technologies we will require in the future are available. If they aren't available the problem is a science/technology one. Your earlier examples of change from steam power and gas lighting weren't quite analogous. The demise of steam power and gas lighting resulted from the emergence of new technologies, not the other way round. Those technologies weren't driven by a pressing need to find them but were the product of someone coming up with a new idea/invention that provided a better solution than the one that existed at the time. On the whole you can't have invention on demand. No doubt 'the market' will put a lot of additional resources into searching for alternatives to oil, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will find them.

 

F1 will have to become greener in the end or pressure will end it, I hope it's the entourage that has to make the most effort in this department, Bernie could award the car designers/manufactors monetary incentives to develop race cars that are efficient in all areas, then F1 can be seen to be doing something..The FIA should give the designers free reign to invent in this area IMO.

 

Who says? Just because the EU says something doesn't mean F1 has to react to it.

Whether F1 goes down the drain or not depends solely on what its fans think. If the fans want it to be green, then it has to change. Because without fanbase/viewership there is no reason for the sponsor to throw money at it. Without sponsors or car manufacturers using it as their ad campaign, there is no money and ergo no F1.

So the question is really whether the fans want F1 to be green or not. From some of the posts on here I can tell that some fans are interested in that, but is it a majority? I doubt it.

However the users on Ferrarichat are not really a representative sample, because they're mostly based in the US where the environment movement isn't as strong as e.g. in Europe (California being the exception). Something I always realize when I travel to Europe or turn on BBC news. Being green here is more like a hobby for some whereas in Europe it looks to me like an obsession.

 

The pressure will not come from racing fans, but as you say, the tree huggers and goverments being seen doing something to stop polar bears falling of the ice.

 

What pressure?

You can only exert pressure if you have some kind of power. Unless they start legislating rules for racing, the environmentalists and the government have no say. Dictating the FIA rule book would be going a bit far IMHO.

Governments in e.g. Asia have a lot of power because they sponsor the GPs, but they're not interested in green topics. Governments in Europe are, but there the races run without subsidies or state sanctions. Only Monaco is left as a road circuit, but the Rainiers never striked me as very green to begin with.

The EU (sadly) managed to enforce a ban on tobacco advertisements in F1. True. But only because tobacco ads were deemed illegal in any sport. They didn't single out F1. They can't demand e.g. electric engines in F1 racing unless they would make combustion engines illegal for any kind of vehicles. Which is unlikely.

PS: Regarding the polar bears: Why does the environmentalist movement always look first to the motorists and racing? Industries and households create a bigger part of pollution than the cars. But they're not such an easy target because their behavior is more politically correct. It is not about facts, but symbolism and idealism. But we're getting here into a discussion that's better suited for P&R than the Racing section.

PPS: F1 will automatically do a big contribution to the green movement when the teams will get rid of their wind tunnels, which need a tremendous amount of energy to run. CFD will gradually replace them over the next years. F1 should focus on that as a positive message which won't even cost them much. A FIA ban on wind tunnels would actually be something I would welcome. They could dress it as green, whereas I look at it as an enhancement of the sport.

 

I'am a big fan of Clarkson and his view's so I can't disagree.

My point is I would like to see the sport making a effort to look as if it is taking green issues into consideration, in that way stopping outsiders like the EU inforcing pressure like you pointed out ie tobacco ads.

Yes the wind tunnel great lose it ,as long as it does not stop me putting fingers in my ears at a GP race I'am happy.

 

Biggest fan of Clarkson on the planet here.

Agreed with your comments. I'm all for lip service if it gets the focus away from F1.

I just hate any form of governmental intrusion and believe firmly in the self regulation of markets.

 

Electric cars might contribute to reducing pollution but aren't a big solution to dwindling oil suppplies. When you come home and plug your electric car into the mains to recharge the battery that process consumes electricity, which in all likelihood was produced by burning oil!

 

Nuclear power.

 

A racing series for electric or hybrid cars would be of no interest to me now, but maybe 20 years down the road, when these cars become the norm. Even sports-car racing, with the current ACO and ELMS/ALMS rules favoring diesels, is making it boring..

 

No, it will never run out. It will become cost-ineffective looooong before it gets used up.

You are making an incorrect assumption that oil is the only solution and we can't force-invent an alternative. That is incorrect. There are alternatives that exist right now. If everyone had solar panels and charging stations to charge their own electric vehicle, then we would not need petroleum for our cars. But that would be cost-ineffective. There are other cost-ineffective solutions as well. At the point where gasoline rises to the point where other technologies become more effective, then those other technologies will take over. Those who think we are careening towards a cliff (the day oil supply runs out) simply do not understand the market and how it works.

 

+1

All your comments about oil as an energy were spot on.

At some point oil is no longer wasted on things like heating or combustion engines but used solely to make plastics etc. There is a gazillion other ways to harvest energy, heat our homes and run our cars. Once oil becomes too expensive, we'll switch. I'm not concerned in the slightest.

But until then I'll be happily enjoying the scream of a V8 fuel powered F1 engine at 19k rpm.

 

Again you are incorrect - you ought to do the reasearch on this. The USA produces around 4 trillion kilowatt hours per year of electricity. 1.5% of that comes from petroleum. 1.5%! 50% from coal, 20% from natural gas, 20% from nuclear, 6% from hydroelectric, and around 2.5% from "other" (including solar, wind, other gases, etc).

Electric cars would be an absolute solution to dwindling oil supplies. So are hydrogen powered cars. Both of those technologies are available now... today! You can also go buy a diesel and run biodiesel in it and wean yourself completely from oil and have a very similar driving experience to what you do with a gas car. Anyone can do that NOW - no new technology needed. The only thing keeping it from gaining momentum is price.

In 5 years, and 10 years and more years (at which time there will still be plenty of oil) we will have even better technology. At some point there will be a crossover from gas to "something" (whether something will be electric, hydrogen, biofuel or something else is unimportant). The crossover may come due to the performance of alternative vehicles meeting or exceeding that of gasoline, or it may be from necessity due to price - where the cost of gas rises to the point where other technologies are cheaper, and therefore will get used. But make no mistake, it will come. And it will happen slowly, and virtually unnoticed.

We could still have cars and drive around *today* without gas, but we can't do it for a cheaper price than gas. As the price of gas goes up, these other technologies will come to the forefront. Oil will never run out because we will transition away from it before we ever come close to that danger zone, but the moment we start seeing the price of oil continuing to rise, we will hit the crossover to other more cost effective competing technologies.

The example of the steam engine and horse to car are perfectly relevant because as cheaper methods came to use, more expensive methods replaced them. Since we will never runs out of oil, and since alternatives *already* exist, it's not a question of necessity but one of price - just like with steam and horses and other technology shifts.

The idea that there could even possibly be worldwide chaos as the oil supply runs out is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the market and the technology. It won't happen. It's not that it probably won't happen, it absolutely won't happen - not ever.

 

Mike it may come back round again Steam powered that is ..http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4076811.stm

http://www.steamcar.co.uk/

 

Sorry to take the thread off track a bit

i agree with you completely - its silly for the EU to try to attempt some feel-good "top down" approach and thinking that F1 will set an example for others to follow. Ridiculous - let them run their gas engines for as long as they like. Actually the last thing F1 needs now is to have yet another engine technology change... V10 -> V8 was bad enough! Max should use his arrogant and *****head attitude for once to tell the EU to shove it and that he will decide how green-ness is added to F1. 4 cylinders and bio fuel is the brain fart of some moronic politician who is trying to hype up an issue to make himself look good to his lower intelligence constituence who don't posess the brainpower to think it through on their own!

My .02 at least

 

Spot on.

Areas for Mad Max to focus on:

- While I like the current qualifying format, the "burning off of fuel" period in Q3 has got to be the worst self PR one can possibly do. We want the teams out there in Q3, but not to burn off fuel.

- As mentioned below wind tunnels are becoming obsolete and are indeed a huge waste of energy.

- Now soon we'll be getting the KERS stuff into the cars.

 

Amazing! thanks for the link.

Can you imagine... instead of letting your car "warm up" to get it blowing warm air in the cabin on a cold day, you will literally let it "warm up" to get the water boiling! Cool project.

 

Spot on yourself that is so true..

 

I'm not, but I also don't agree we should just waste energy because we can.

No it is not, it is stupid. The concept is simply for TV viewer ... when have I ever given a stuff about the TV show. I'm a motor racing fan, not a Bernie's TV show fan.

I never applauded ALMS ... don't even know what it is .

My point is: Please do not tie F1 to petrol engines. F1 should be whatever is the fastest. Petrol engines have had their day, let them continue for vintage cars, but I am all for using F1 engineers to make a new type of engine, be it electric, hydrogen powered, etc.

Ever heard of video recorders? While your point has merit, a lot of people watching will not be happy with the obvious and very visual waste of energy. Do we need to give them more ammo?

Again if the only thing you guys are interested in is Bernies TV show ... then we have little in common. Bernie's TV show will kill F1 if we let it. F1 became the fascinating thing it is because it is basic human emotions and interest, who is the fastest. Bernie is mistakenly given credit for creating this basic human emotion ... crazy. All Bernie did is recognise this and put a TV show on top. Just like a porno movie, the real deal is better than the show. F1 needs to ensure we can get back to that raw interest ... relaxing the rules is the only way ... and that includes letting teams explore superior and alternative fuels, energy sources. It will be the most interesting period of F1 ever, diesel versus petrol versus hydrogen versus electric, versus who knows ... fascinating!!!


Also many years ago I entered a race meeting because it was part of my club championship. This race meeting had a night race because it was in a city called Hamilton in NZ. It was an attempt to get the crowds in. Because my car did not have an alternator and because there were no points on offer for the night race ... and to be honest because they had a Le Mans start, which is just crazily dangerous on a street circuit (I would have been in the top 5 or 6 of the grid and thus a sitting duck trying to get a 6 point harness on while all hell broke loose around me), I did not enter.

Within one lap we had carnage everywhere and many cars stuffed ... yeah great racing if you are into smash up derbys :yawn:
Pete

 

IMHO Max has a pretty clear vision of the future for F1 technology. It is not engine power (hence the development freeze) and it is not aero (overly sophisticated now). His push towards regenerative braking and kinetic energy management has many benefits. It is where F1 can lead in a technology that WILL be in all cars within 10 years so the manufacturers get a buzz from that. All the big R+D bucks will actually have relevance to road cars rather than fighter jets. It sets F1 further apart from the luddites in other race series who can't see anything beyond the status quo. It also satisfies the environmental issues in a positive way.