What should Formula One do to go green? Express your thought

[freedom_honda]

i was reading the Green special Edition of F1 Racing today and realize how much FIA can do to turn Formula One even greener.

A few former f1 engineers suggested one of the simplest thing FIA can do is simply lower the minimum weight limit and when i was reading i was like oh yeah what is the point of carrying like 50kg of ballast which slows the cars down and reduce the fuel efficiency?

another important thing is that the current F1 rigs limits engineers from show the world their ideas and what they can do. i am pretty sure they should be have LOTS of ideas of how to be keep these cars fast and green.

and so should you guys.
maybe we should collect all the ideas and send a list of what we think FIA can do to Max


Tell me what you guys think FIA can do to turn Formula One greener. Any ideas are welcomed



BTW. these suggestions doesnt has to be limited to technology/mechanical side. it can be anything you can think of. For example banning motorhomes and limit the number of trucks each team is bring to a GP weekend.

[megz]

Allow the teams better ways if igniting their fuel rather than a single spark plug per cylinder.

Invest in Hydrogen fueled engines

Make all cars fun W16 engines. With a carburettor, 2 valves per cylinder, running on leaded NASCAR fuel.

[nae]

i like the 'max joules of energy as fuel and run any engine you can' idea

less weight

stumpped

[Ciro Pabón]

The FIA itself has had some documents in his site for a couple of years:

FIA declaration on air quality, climate change, and automotive fuel economy 189 Kb
Climate for change 6 Mb
Fuelling the debate 5.3 Mb

This isn't posted at the FIA policy center now (it was), but it's the best I've read: A feasibility study on the role of motorsports in the development of energy efficient automotive technologies

Some quotes:

"Long-term sustainability would however be achieved by moving away from fossil fuels altogether."

"The first of these solutions is the introduction of a “green” class into an existing touring car championship, such as the European Touring Car Championship (ETCC) or British Touring Car Championship (BTCC).
The underlying philosophy of this proposal is that the regulations for entries in this class should be open to allow car manufacturers to develop relevant energy efficient technologies. The main restriction would be a limitation on available fuel."

"The third proposal presented in this report focuses on the introduction of an entirely new racing series, aimed at running super fuel-efficient cars, in order to allow car manufacturers to develop the technology to produce cars that can achieve 100mpg at 100mph."

Now, a rant (I think I've been ranting a lot this last week, must be the cold that makes me feel miserable, sorry):

Most people here can attest I worry about the environmental consequences of cars and that I try to keep the forum up to date on people that advances toward a zero pollution transportation system.

However, let's be realistic: is "green" a sport devoted to cars that are extremely noisy, produce toxic fumes and waste gas at the tune of maybe 2 mpg? Does it make any sense to call "green" an industry, like the car industry, that is responsible for a share of the increase in global temperatures? I won't mention the shame of engineers (me included!) devoted to manufacture devices and infrastructure responsible for 1 million annual deaths, the small elephant in the corner of the "car room". I won't mention the costs: I've already said that the annual investments in F1 alone are almost as high as the entire yearly investment in the African road network. For two dozen cars. That's another shame.

Yeah, sure, green. It sounds like the scientific efforts of the japanese whale fleet. In a couple of generations we, racing fans, will be seen as "green" as the owners of labor shops in XIXth century England.

You want to know what is "green"? Public transportation. Bycicles. Education of drivers for safer roads. Automatic systems that control speed. But definitely, most emphatically, racing is NOT green, at least not today.

Finally, I hate the word "green": it's a way of life for people devoted to it, like Green Party members and conservation societies, and a "spin" word for most capitalists who couldn't care less for the welfare of others.

[pnagy]

I think that they should have some sort of emission standard similar in style to road cars

[West]

I have to agree along Ciro's lines. If you want F1 to be green, kill the series.

Other than that, run production engines

[megz]

Honda have got the idea, run on more man power!

Fraaammmmeeee Streettcchhheeeerrrr (I appologise)

[checkered]

Wow, Ciro, it must

be the cold, for I have seen you time and again being inspired to think about various technologies just because of their potential efficiency etc. While it is true that cars certainly are the most visible, audible and tangible cause of pollution (and danger) for many, the unsustainable energy and resource cycles for manufacturing, operating and disposing of motor vehicles are hardly unique to this industry alone. In fact, it's in "good(/bad) company". We all tend to recognise just the segments of human activity we're personally involved in and the universality of the car makes it a symbol, a prime target. This puts "social evolutionary pressure" on transportation, which can be a good thing since we get to reflect on sustainability in a larger context with something that is familiar to everybody - and can inspire everybody.

I think you're very right in coupling road safety with sustainability, obviously having to encounter such considerations in your work (and hobbies). That parallel could be even clearer, though I suspect that people tend to externalise their perception on direct risks such as grave injury or indeed death because one's personal perception on something like that happening to oneself is bound to be irrational compared to statistical analysis on the subject, for example. (E.g. ~1500 US road fatalities over the average in car crashes in the months following 9/11 and its ramifications on air travel.) People tend to accept things just for what they've become used to in a very fundamental level (see 'memes'): "Computer operating systems are unstable and illogical", "people die in traffic", "motorsports aren't sustainable". Pardon my language, but f*ck that. I may not be in the position to address most problems, but for the World I can't see the value in being defeatist. That, and I fear that playing on negative preconceptions only serves to complicate things further.

By this I don't mean that if something is completely f*cked up, one shouldn't call it as it is - on the contrary. The perception of "f*cked upness" most often comes from the realisation that something could be (done) much better and that's something that shouldn't be overlooked as a resource. Two sides to the coin and all that. Take contrasting F1 and the annual investment in the African road network, for example ... make a parallel like that, yeah, it might make F1 seem somewhat ludicrous. But what we can also read from the comparison is that the ~$2Bn invested in R&D, advertising and such in F1 would hardly make a dent by itself in the annual $18-25Bn needed for the continent's motor transport infrastructure (Est. actual expenditure is about ~$5Bn ... as I noted somewhere earlier, it's about the equivalent of the increase in income transfer over a half a decade from oil consumers to oil producers on a daily basis.). It's a problem of resource allocation and the political, social and economical capability of African nations (and the World at large) to overcome infrastructural non-tariff trade barriers. I have African acquaintances and can tell that they're more than miffed about the current state of affairs, but can hardly imagine F1 would be the first (or second) direction they'd point out as matters of urgent reappraisal.

Could motorsports be useful in such a dire situation? Safety awareness/schooling perhaps, or training a new generation of engineers in a motorsport setting. In a sample of African countries, 339 deaths per 10,000 vehicles were reported in 1996 which is an appalling number. Indirectly, development in the design/manufacture of composites might radically reduce the need for infrastructure/upkeep investment (not to mention the value of increased safety in vehicles and perhaps even promote indigenous vehicle production). Biofuel/hybrid development could enable incredible advances in a continent that is rich in almost every natural resource imaginable. Africa can "leapfrog" some very destructive development phases and in that sense even has a potential edge on adopting applicable advanced technologies and ideas.

The mechanisms by which F1 and the African road network are financed are quite different ... that is not to say that the crafty spinmeisters who promote motorsports couldn't come up with very innovative financing schemes for other projects, as well. Honda's "green dreams" (or whatever it's called ...) is the very first fumbling attempt at something amounting to coupling seemingly very different interests. In this day and age of Global awareness, they'll get better at it, hopefully much better. The media platform of F1 is immensely more visible than a roadside ad in, say, Liberia, promoting an otherwise worthwhile UN infrastructure/ road safety awareness project.

The word "green" is problematic, I agree. But perhaps we're being patronising in thinking that the current connotations of a single word, emotional or otherwise, would be instrumental in pulling the wool over the eyes of an unwitting majority. Still, I like to emphasize terms like "sustainability" or "(ecological) efficiency" instead, for their etymology alone is a bit more challenging and a bit more descriptive and accurate in a factual sense.

Yeah, future generations will probably look down on us and pity our condition ... but it's our dreams and sense of direction that will give them the opportunity to do so, not the realities we have to deal with. That's why we continue to appreciate people like Chapman, McLaren, Murray and Barnard - some of their ideas and inventions may appear quaint already but their contribution and their relevance and inspiration can hardly be in question. I say let's give the future generations the chance to make up their own mind about motorsports, I'm not going to take it away from them. And this comes from a person that is predominantly a pessimist - in an effort to alleviate your "existential blues" somewhat.

[freedom_honda]

BTW. these suggestions doesnt has to be limited to technology/mechanical side. it can be anything you can think of. For example banning motorhomes and limit the number of trucks each team is bring to a GP weekend.

[Metar]

A rather simple idea: Allow flexible wings. Obviously, wings create enormous amounts of drag down the straights - a flexed wing will produce less drag, allowing smaller engines while keeping the same top speeds.

[Ciro Pabón]

Thanks, Conceptual, well put. I should have been more precise, 2 thousand devaluated millions are enough for mantaining the entire African network, not for investing in new roads.

I emphasize the only rational answer to the thread question, it's not me, it's the MIA (Lotus, Ricardo, Brabham...): stop using fossil fuels, limit the fuel on board, stop using drag for downforce. Simple: show us the way! Stop following, start leading.

Yes, I know there are many smart people in F1, but they're smart about racing. The fact that F1 has become "environmentalist" in the last couple of years, well, I don't like it. Even you could admit it reeks of public relations. Le Mans have been rewarding thermal efficiency since I remember without so much fuss: in the policy section of FIA site ALL papers are devoted to environmentalism. You read the papers, and what do you find? "Inflate your tires...". C'mon, I've already read that in Sunday paper. Meanwhile engine development is frozen. Double c'mon.

How about a championship point for the car that uses less gas in a GP? How about an "X-prize" for the first car with severely reduced emissions ("race at 100 mph and 100 mpg")?

They are not doing anything of that, as West points. That does not mean we cannot think about how it should be. However, I'm still waiting for the first truly "green" idea that is born at FIA. I don't think ideas like, I don't know, flexi-wings (thanks Metar) are going to change the idea of F1: it's a circus, not a ground for the development of a zero emissions transport system. At this pace, it will never be.

[Metar]

However, I'm still waiting for the first truly "green" idea that is born at FIA. I don't think ideas like, I don't know, flexi-wings (thanks Metar) are going to change the idea of F1: it's a circus, not a ground for the development of a zero emissions transport system. At this pace, it will never be.

I agree with you on this point: Formula 1, as Formula 1, isn't green. The best it will probably do is set tighter limits - from more restricted engines, fuel-restrictions or KERS systems. As long as there's a high-revving unrenewable-gas powered engine in that thing, it won't be very green.

And to be honest, I don't see why it should be. Moves to improve efficiency are welcome, and I'm sure engine-regulations will keep downsizing them - but I don't see why Formula 1 should become the edge of not-going-slow-but-rather-wasting-little-fuel. KERS systems, I believe, are an excellent thing for Formula 1 to develop, for a very simple reason: It makes sense for F1 to develop KERS systems. They make the car go faster. In-wheel electric motors? Sure, sign me up - that extra power at the front wheels should help the car off the line (or out of the corner), and that extra fuel saved will actually help teams run lighter cars. But you can't come to a team telling them, "there's an extra 50mil in it for you if your car is dog-slow but does twice the MPG". Apart from Aguri or other Minardi-esque teams, I can't see anyone taking up that challenge.


It's a two-bladed sword, essentially. Go "too green" and you lose the fans who are there for the noise, the excitement, and the technical sides of it (assuming you restrict development in effort to go greener). Stay "brown", and the rest of the world will hate you.

[Belatti]

What should Formula One do to go green?

Ehrr... I would start legalizing the Macoña in the paddock. Eventually drivers could use it to cool down before the start of the race. Then race starts could be fun! Imagine drivers going slow, laughing, throwing fumes through the helmet!

[Ciro Pabón]

Metar, you're right, F1 doesn't have to be a field for improved engine efficiency. On the other hand, maybe it already is: I imagine fuel consumption is a number that engineers at teams look after.

However, I just want to point out the issue of F1 long term viability. This is what has justified all my posts on fuel and F1. Let me put it this way:

One hundred years ago, the world was witnessing the golden age of railroads. There were efforts to produce the most advanced, faster, more efficient locomotive. By 1900, 90% of the railroad network we have today was in place. Cars were made by hand, the same way we produce aircrafts today. Railroads ruled the transportation world.

In 1905 the steel-vanadium alloy became commercially viable. Henry Ford put that together with production line techniques to invent Model A. In 1918, after the war, railroads collapsed in USA. There were many war-surplus trucks. The railroad never recovered: people started to move goods by truck and to travel by car.

Now, move 100 years forward: the car is king of transportation. Oil is in short supply. There are many kinds of personal aircrafts that, with new composite materials developed in the last decades, cost the same as a car. Racing is still done using old designs, devoided of all the robotic gadgets, like traction control, hybrid engines, active suspension or assisted steering that the car that is in your garage has. Can you see some kind of parallel between those two situations?

If F1 continue the path of "dinosauric" ICE, sticks itself to "no intelligence on board" (besides the one of the driver), it has no attachments to the development of the new breed of cars whose design and development we're witnessing, where will it end? Perhaps in the same way locomotives ended. Maybe I'm exaggerating a little, but... meanwhile, I'll have the same Belatti is drinking.

[Metar]

I see your point, true. But perhaps Formula 1 should remain what it is, and a second formula start in parallel?


And now that I think of it: Engines in Formula 1, I read somewhere, are around 20% more efficient than road-engines. That's a start...

And didn't the Honda engine-engineers have to improve fuel-economy for the last Turbocharged McLarens?