I didn't think I'd see it this fast, ICE is history...

No chance. Electric tech is nowhere near mature enough for F1. They struggle to do a pathetic FE race on a single charge. If it does merge With F1 it will be because it’s going out of business and needs a graceful way out for all the manufacturers that have pumped cash into a Formula with no spectator appeal that races on garbage circuits with second rate washed out drivers using rubbish externally identical cars that are no faster than most micro scooters.

 

+1

FE has the contract to do Formula electric racing, not F1. If they do merge, very easy chance to seize the opportunity and create GP1. No issues with racing on the best tracks since F1E won't be able to run on those tracks anyways without becoming a complete laughing stock.

Actually, given my complete distrust in F1 and the FIA, bring it on.

 

The average Rallycross race is over in 5mins.

Formula E cars are doing under 1/3 the distance of F1 cars while producing only 235kw.

3 years more like 33 years.

 

And, lets not forget...they race on tiny tracks with tiny straights...so that their slow speed won't get noticed as much and their batteries don't empty too quick..

 

Electric has zero business on race tracks. Zero.

IMO the concept of the Fisker Karma has it right for a daily driven car: An engine used normally for charging the batteries, batteries drive the car, engine used as back up power for when you go full throttle. MPG is rated at 112!

Sure people can drive full electric cars if they rarely do long distances.

But what is problematic to me, low production cars, why should they be affected? Their impact is absolutely tiny, in fact, they do far less harm than the cleanest of normal use vehicles, because after X years, a normal car gets scrapped. A low production supercar a) generally gets driven far less per year b) only ever get scrapped when they're crashed beyond repair. In 80 years, a Ferrari 812 build today will still drive around. A Tesla Model S, or Taycan even? Long been scrapped.

 

Just because you can put 1,000 lbs of batteries in a road car and make it do 200 miles doesn’t mean it’s anywhere near ready for race distances of any decent length. The batteries alone would weigh more than the entire F1 car today. And let’s not even talk about endurance racing over 6, 12 or 24 hours. Fast charging isn’t race car fast. Battery tech hasn’t taken a material leap forwards in decades. The pace of development of battery tech is glacial because it’s very very difficult. It’s not coming to F1 anytime soon.

 

No way, first for technical reason stated above.

And then: they´ve just signed a new agreement for five years, so we can´t expect any radical change until it expires. I doubt that in six years the electric technology will be good enough to replace completely the ICE engines.

 

In Europe at least, electric cars are the future, and it won't be a matter of choice.
This will simply be forced upon us by legislation, some unknown to the public, but already in place !
The choice of mode of transport will soon be a thing of the past. The EU has already voted to ban the sale of ICE cars beyond a certain date.
It was initially 2050, then it became 2040, and I believe it is now 2035, 2030 in some countries. Governments are well aware of the public reluctance.
So, to force the motorists to switch, existing ICE will, be heavily taxed, so will be fossil fuels. I have read that ICE cars may be banned from town very soon.
The EU is now preparing legislation to anticipate the ban ICE vehicle use, just a few years after the ban on sale, to boost the car industry.
Already most manufacturers have electric vehicles in their range to satisfy governments, and to be ready for the change.
Once the market becomes all electric, I cannot see how motor racing can continue using ICE.
Probably historic racing will be given an exemption, but the main championships (WRC, WEC, and F1) will not avoid running electric cars.
As I said, that we like it or not.

 

Electric cars are not THE answer to the future l; they are PART of the answer to the future.

F1 and Fmulinex will not merge; it would be the death nail for F1. (Nobody watches FE anyways as that is why it’s on the crap channels along with rubbish like Gold Divers etc. and not on subscription ie Sky)

As stated by BMW publicly recently, electric technology can not answer the demand for SUVs as they are too heavy and thus the power to weight ratio does not work. Hence the drive to invest in hydrogen powered technology for big vehicles including freight transport, construction, agriculture, etc.

Similarly a number of manufacturers have come out, including Porsche, with plans to develop synthetic fuels and hence ICE will NOT die anytime soon.

If F1 ties up with anybody it would make sense to do so on synthetic fuel technology.

The mass press and our dim witted politicians can only push electric as that is “on trend”. It is NOT THE sole answer.

I really wish people would wake up and apply some common sense!

 

As far as I can see, electric power for road cars will be imposed in Europe because it is the easy solution to meet the deadlines.
By a fixed date, in 2035 perhaps, some in the EU want sooner, only zero emission cars will be allowed.
I don't know about the rest of the world, but most advanced countries have similar plans (China, Singapore, Norway, maybe California, etc ...).
Hydrogen may be tempting for the long term, but it will not be ready by that date.
BMW may say what they want, but in the meantime, and in contradiction to their claim, they have just announced today the launch of 8 electric vehicles in their range before 2025 !!!
In the EU, it's not only the ecologists who push for change, but the economists now, who see the immense potential existing by renewing the complete car fleet , and providing millions of jobs for years to come !!!

As I said, it's not a matter of choice, and many decisions have already been made in high places.

 

BMW to launch nine new electric cars by 2025
7 Series, X1 and 5 Series among models to receive battery-powered variants as BMW aims to lead market

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/bmw-launch-nine-new-electric-cars-2025

The second article explains why hydrogen is way behind electric.
For example, only 4 refuelling points in UK.
Also, you need electricity to produce hydrogen !!!

Analysis: Is there a place for hydrogen in motoring?
Battery-electric sales are on the rise but so is industry interest in hydrogen vehicles

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/analysis-there-place-hydrogen-motoring

 

Hydrogen is way behind because the governments didnt invest in it like electric; in other words they didn’t have good lobbyists. Shipping and heavy industry will drive this; even though there have been hydrogen cars for some time.

In exactly the same way tidal has only recently started to be invested in; whereas it should have been the first and biggest area to invest in for blatantly obvious reasons; unfortunately it doesn’t produce good pictures in the press and is a bit “complicated” for the average politician to understand!

I still don’t believe ICE will die. There is not the infrastructure, rare earth minerals in the world or the population with the money or desire to change all cars to electric; maybe in a generation, maybe!

 

Whether you like it or not, for the kinds of performance people want, EV has already surpassed ICE.
The only place where ICE holds a lead is in long distance--longer per day that the size of the "tank".

 

Hydrogen is way behind because of 14.3Kcal/mole !
It takes x amount of energy to create "1 gallon" of hydrogen
In an ICE the most you get back is 35% (and more likely 30%) At F1 hybrid technology levels you might be able to get back 50%.

You can take that x amount of energy, put it in a battery and get more than 80% of it back.

So to make the hydrogen ICE economy work, you need an even bigger electrical grid with hydrogen than with EVs.

The only way to use hydrogen and drive automobiles is fuel-cell technology where you get back on-the-order-of 80%.
And the friggen car has all the characteristics of the battery EV, except for the 20-minute refueling instead of 30 minutes (and the possibility of explosion (H2)--rather than fire (Li battery)).

 

The recharging and lack of "proper" range is the only thing that stops me from buying an electric car.
For the rest, it's a winning proposition, as far as I am concerned.
Reduced fuel costs, lower taxation, cheaper insurance, and almost no maintenance have won me over.
Also, no fuel smell, no vibration, just tyre and wind noises and a bit of whining.
But I wouldn't like to start a 600-mile overnight trip in Europe and worry all the time about recharging.

 

I still remember the smell of Sunoco 260--both in liquid form and as exhaust from a non cat car--simply wonderful

 

What brought electric power back was the reduction of gas emission and to stop the environmental damage caused by fossil fuel extraction.
Electricity can be obtained in many different ways, some very environmentaly friendly, and renewable.
Oil, gas, coal and nuclear power plants are massive polluters, and therefore not the solution.
Hydro energy, wind energy, tidal energy, thermal energy, solar energy are the solution to our problem.
The wind is free, so is the sun. Oceans cover 2/3 of the earth but are largely untapped. Underground heat is not exploited.

At the moment, oil and gas companies are encouraged by governments, together with nuclear energy which is often fully state supported.
As long as we don't tackle this status quo, we will go nowhere, but only dig a bigger hole for ourselves.

 

Each to their own !

 

The official trend is now for electric vehicles, but it's a political fashion not based on strong facts - so IMHO nobody can tell what is going to actually happen.
For a few decades the diesel engines have been strongly promoted (with some success when looking at the sales numbers, they went from being reserved to very high mileage uses to becoming ubiquitous) because they were assumed to produce less CO2 and the fine particles issues were deliberately ignored. Today diesel engines are going to be killed with new constraints everyday (they will die before having to use more adblue than fuel...)
Regarding emissions, I am still amazed by the lack of interest in bioethanol, which could be used in ICE engines with very minor changes and is not a fossil fuel (it does not release CO2 that's been captured millenia ago).

 

People in general tend to overlook the fact that EV cars also consume rubber glass steel plastics and not to forget the very special metals used in the batteries, which are in limited supplies.
The lure of 0-60 mph under 3 seconds will quickly be confronted with increase in accidents caused by high speed in EV cars which are NOT tuned for speed and cornering
And dont even get me started on the distraction of having to look at an interface with a large digital screen (Tesla) to operate 99% of the vehicle functions
Its all IMO a push to sell more stuff by riding the environmental wave with little real net impact on the environment.

 

There is an interest, but the market is cautious; it hasn't been a hit in Brazil where it was introduced many years ago.
In spite of government incentive, low taxation and the cooperation of most car manufacturers, its share of the market is in decline.

 

Turning food into fuel is a bad idea in a world with nearly 8B people.....heading towards 12B........