OMG - Oh My, Greenwashing.

[alelanza]

The open throttle in corners is a waste of fuel

You realize this is F1, and as such fuel is used to go faster?

There are a million ways to make a car go faster and most of them are banned. You are not supposed to put a fan under your car or fit a 10L engine. So your point is pretty moot in my view.

You're supposed to do whatever you can in order to go faster, as long as the rules allow you to. But that's not the point, the point is you're in an F1 forum claiming fuel should not be used to make cars go faster. If you look at an F1 car, you'll notice it's got an engine that uses fuel, without which it wouldn't move at all, so to claim that they 'waste' fuel in the overrun equals to me asking you why do you even watch F1 at all?

F1 must become more energy efficient. So the restrictions that comprise the formula should be those which are in line with efficiency.

As already pointed out by someone else, what you really mean is that you would like for F1 to be more energy efficient. And that's fine, i'm sure many people that don't really watch racing would feel better if they opened their morning paper and read that firebreathing demonic F1 uses the tiniest most efficient engines nowadays, they would probably raise their eyebrows and feel a bit better about themselves. Surely a few sponsors would like to capitalize on that feel good moment, and econobox car manufacturers would love to advertise on the page opposite to that bit of news, making their marketing investment in F1 more justifiable to their ever greedier shareholders.
"This car is motivated by the soul of F1 and can be yours for $15k"
So yeah, it surely makes sense in some people's heads

[CMSMJ1]

F1 must become more energy efficient. So the restrictions that comprise the formula should be those which are in line with efficiency.

In your opinion, of course.

Me, I'd like to see racing cars doing what they do best - turning dino-juice in to noise and speed with no compromise.

I do fuel saving at home; I don't want to watch it during my "fantasy 90 minutes" every fortnight...

Anything else is "greenwash".

I support your views and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. =D>

[Just_a_fan]

It is your point of view but not that of the governing body and majority of people who want to keep F1 exciting but make it fuel efficient at the same time.

So you're speaking for the majority of people now are you? Any figures to back this "majority" claim?

Wasting fuel is not at all a prerequisite of good racing. People who think so are either bad engineers or have no technical understanding at all.

Really? Ultimately, if you use less fuel you'll get less power (sadly the laws of nature come in to play here) and F1 with low power, quiet, efficient engines might be intellectually interesting but it is not exciting.

How does one align the need to keep F1 costs in check with the requirement to be fuel efficient? In order to make engines that are capable of making today's levels of power with much reduced fuel consumption and to do so for several races without rebuilds etc. is going to be extremely expensive if it's even possible.

Your "greenwash" propaganda is nothing but that as soon as people do a bit of thinking. F1 racing can be very engineering oriented and exciting for technical people and still be fuel efficient.

Yes, it can be technically challenging but fuel efficiency is not part of sprint racing (which is what F1 is) it's part of endurance racing.

If we take the logical route to reducing fuel use then we must also greatly reduce drag. Eventually we're going to end up with enclosed-wheel prototypes running diesel hybrids. Now, I for one don't want to see that in F1 - I watch Le Mans etc. for that.

[WhiteBlue]

Hair splitting again? The new engines will not be quiet! And less fuel use does not mean less power. You can increase the efficiency, use less fuel and have more power at the same time. It is easy for an engineer to see how it is done. And the fact that all teams supported the new engines in the December vote of the F1 commission is proof that the vast majority of the F1 professionals support the move for fuel efficiency. Only uninformed people and those with an agenda deny this.

[Just_a_fan]

Hair splitting again? The new engines will not be quiet! And less fuel use does not mean less power. You can increase the efficiency, use less fuel and have more power at the same time. It is easy for an engineer to see how it is done.

You can only do so to a point. It's not a never ending scale of improvement - indeed the law of diminishing returns will apply quite quickly. And as that law bites the costs of further improvements increases massively.

This is not a low cost option. It doesn't need an engineer to see that.

And the fact that all teams supported the new engines in the December vote of the F1 commission is proof that the vast majority of the F1 professionals support the move for fuel efficiency.

No it isn't. F1 doesn't work like that. The teams send a representative to the groups. This is often a senior engineer or the technical director. The teams vote to suit their political positions and the financial implications thereof. The vast majority of F1 professionals don't get a say in this. They do what they're told by their bosses.

I know someone who used to represent a team at these meetings - the lack of technical understanding by some of those present was quite surprising apparently.

Only uninformed people and those with an agenda deny this.

And yes, I do have an agenda (just as you have yours - so don't try to make it sound like I'm a "bad person" in this regard). My agenda is that I'm happy to apply efficiency savings to my daily life (low fuel use in my car, recycling of waste, growing my own food where I can - reduces food miles massively) - I don't necessarily want to see my "fantasy sport" have to go down the same route thanks. I want "blood and thunder". I don't believe your preferred route for F1 will preserve that "blood and thunder" approach to racing.

[beelsebob]

Hair splitting again? The new engines will not be quiet! And less fuel use does not mean less power. You can increase the efficiency, use less fuel and have more power at the same time. It is easy for an engineer to see how it is done.

You can only do so to a point. It's not a never ending scale of improvement - indeed the law of diminishing returns will apply quite quickly. And as that law bites the costs of further improvements increases massively.

But it's a scale that shows no hint of being near the end yet. The fact that we can make KERS hybrid 1.6l straight 4 engines that are almost as powerful (and probably within a few years will be as powerful) as the V10/12s for the 80s shows that pretty clearly.

[Richard]

Come on guys, where does it say "fuel saving" in the thread title and OP?

Edit to add - There is an funny irony in greenwash polluting the conversation .... greenwash .... polluting .... I'll get my coat.

[andrew]

Edit to add - There is an funny irony in greenwash polluting the conversation .... greenwash .... polluting .... I'll get my coat.

Ba-doom cha!

[CMSMJ1]

Hair splitting again? The new engines will not be quiet! And less fuel use does not mean less power. You can increase the efficiency, use less fuel and have more power at the same time. It is easy for an engineer to see how it is done. And the fact that all teams supported the new engines in the December vote of the F1 commission is proof that the vast majority of the F1 professionals support the move for fuel efficiency. Only uninformed people and those with an agenda deny this.

Have you actually heard any of the current turbocharged racecars? They all sound completely lame and unless the new F1 engines have stupendous amounts of power they are going to be regarded as a failure.

GP3 - granted, not supposed to be the pinnacle of racing, but they are lame
1.6 IL4 turbo engine

F2 - supposed to be a viable race series..totally numbing and boring noises
1.8 IL4 turbo engine

WTCC - The Diesels* and the new formula turbo cars - holy ---..so very boring.

The turbo cars will sound rubbish. The only saving grace would be if we could see the haze of hydrocarbons behind them as they torture the air to create 1500+BHP from the 1.6l and they also create mini napalm strikes on the overrun.

I know you are going to bore me about efficiency and so on - the normal person does not care about this in relation to high performance racing series. They do not demand that race horses eat methane friendly fodder....they do not demand that rugby players don't eat beans....they still drive themselves to the races in large cars that are sold to them on the power and presence, rather than efficiency.

*Diesels are for trucks and trains. They have no place in a "proper" racing formula.

[autogyro]

Its great to read all this interest in history.
When all racing is electric, these guys should start a historic club, where they can all sit round sipping cocoa and remembering how it was they became deaf.

[andrew]

*Diesels are for trucks and trains. They have no place in a "proper" racing formula.

So Le Mans and Touring Car are not proper racing? Elitist much?

[CMSMJ1]

The problem I have with diesels is that they try to change the rules too much when they are involved. Diesels are heavy by dint of their design and to make them viable they have to be forced induction. To race these against n/a petrol cars seems to be tweaking the rules the wrong way.

By "proper" racing car I mean a car that does not have any spurious restrictions on it - such as the silhouette for WTCC and the second seat for the LMP cars.

I am not elitist, I watch pretty much anything that involves burning fuel and driving/riding skill.

I suppose I am a base bigot....."fuellist"

[Just_a_fan]

Its great to read all this interest in history.
When all racing is electric, these guys should start a historic club, where they can all sit round sipping cocoa and remembering how it was they became deaf.

When all racing is electric no one will be watching because it'll be like watching TV with the sound turned off.

The very rich will be racing old cars because they can afford the fuel. And lots of people will be watching at the circuit because they will enjoy doing so.

You and WB will sitting their in silence enjoying the efficiency and wondering where everyone else is.

We'll be having a great time without you.

[Richard]

There were probably similar conversations at Ascot & Cowes about the lack of horses in the new fangled motor car races, and how could anyone possibly be interested in boats without sails. I can imagine mutterings among Shakespearean actors about the lack of human emotion in those new talking pictures, even worse that they were american!

[alelanza]

The fact that we can make KERS hybrid 1.6l straight 4 engines that are almost as powerful (and probably within a few years will be as powerful) as the V10/12s for the 80s shows that pretty clearly.

What that shows clearly is that engines will make as much power and be as efficient as the regulations allow them to be. The same applies to the cars overall acceleration capabilities, it's all about the rules.
I think it's important for people to remember that F1 is no lab for magic technology, the teams that spend the most are only spending the equivalent of a portion of a manufacturer's marketing budget and focus those $ on making a 600+ kg open wheel/cockpit single seater go around a closed circuit while fighting similar machinery, using parts that will be deemed useless after a few hundred/thousand miles. Somehow a few people have got it in their heads that a side effect of such a process is to discover the magic perpetual motion machine that could not be engineered by those same manufacturers while using their far larger R&D budgets that actually focus on covered wheel, mostly roofed, usually multi passenger, and hopefully capable of 200k + miles vehicles that take people from A to B under very strict rules that among many other things ensure people don't have to fight for bits of tarmac on their way to getting a beer or their dog's food.
And you can't really blame people that think that way, i guess sitting for 3 hours on a Sunday watching cars go around in loops while thinking they're a small part of a brave new world is a respectable fantasy to have. But you do have to wonder if these same people thought car technology advances took place during the filming of 'Back to the Future', after all not only did that DeLorean not break down as much but it would have been real good at reaching checkered flag even before the quali session got started




P.S. what's that thing in his head? somehow it looks to me like the next big advancement in gearbox technology