Alghoughthe FIA and F1 guys are sensitive to environmetal issues and their public peception, to me racing is all about fun, tthe joy of competition on and off the track. taken in whole, F1 is an irresponsible sport, burning fuel and using up expensive hand made parts. But the bottom line is thst it unashamadly a fun sport, fast cars and sexy women, in a carnval atmosphere.
There are extremes to everything. if you want to be eco-friendly, follow the solar racers. But if you like big boys in expensive toys going at it for fun, there's f1.
Dave, I really think that the entire idea of motorsports revolves around how the fun part you mention is intertwined with engineering. I think you would be bored if F1 were "ONLY toys" or "ONLY babes".
The boring part. Let's get rid of it. You never know if environmental issues can be expressed as engineering issues. I quote the MIA report:
"F1 has become a victim of its own aerodynamics". (oops... this is OOT, but I always make fun of this little problem...)
"Lotus had been focused on these issues pre-1960, as they were keen to win the Index of Thermal Efficiency at Le Mans. In fact Colin Chapman once said that Formula One should have just three rules: the length of the race, the amount of fuel that could be carried, and the plan area of the car."
"... transportation fuels are projected to account for almost 57 percent of total world oil consumption by 2020."
"... the lowering of carbon to expected levels cannot be achieved by reducing vehicle fuel consumption alone, even if the entire car population is converted to diesel."
Tom wrote:
I have been working as consultant for the Ministry of Energy in Colombia. What I can tell you is that you need around 1 km2 of land for car (11 Has) per year. Do your own math and check if this is sustainable in your country, specially when useful land is decreasing because of global warming. Hydrogen is worse: check how they produce it today... it is an ecological nightmare. Electric cars, feed by a central coal-burning electricity plant have the same problem: you just put all the contamination in one place.
Gotta disagree with you over hydrogen.
Build a nuclear plant, use it to provide the electricity for electrolysis and away you go.
Tom wrote:
I have been working as consultant for the Ministry of Energy in Colombia. What I can tell you is that you need around 1 km2 of land for car (11 Has) per year. Do your own math and check if this is sustainable in your country, specially when useful land is decreasing because of global warming. Hydrogen is worse: check how they produce it today... it is an ecological nightmare. Electric cars, feed by a central coal-burning electricity plant have the same problem: you just put all the contamination in one place.
Gotta disagree with you over hydrogen.
Build a nuclear plant, use it to provide the electricity for electrolysis and away you go.
do you have any idea how ineffecint electrolisis is
I don't see why people are mixing up the issues of green technology and racing and concluding that F1 would be for the worse. They are almost totally separate. Hybrids or fuel consumption regulation won't ruin the spectacle of F1.
There's always been rule changes to the "formula." V10's, V8's, aero regs, and turbo chargers are the most pertinent examples. Initial introduction of these have always reduced overall speeds. But after experience with these limits teams have always innovated and made cars go faster with them... especially with turbos (even though they werent originally a limiting regulation).
Basically, lower displacement with hybrid technology to recover some of the lost power is roughly equivalent to a higher displacement engine. With that factor being equal, there should be no effect on racing.
In fact, push to pass is entirely designed to increase the spectacle. You can get a sense of this from how hybrid technology is being introduced in upper segment cars and SUV's more as power-adders than as fuel savers. In F1, with aero as the dominating factor in car design, overtaking is almost impossible. Push to pass is entirely designed to compensate that, bringing overtaking back to the level of the early 90's.
Safety regs are introduced all the time to bring down speeds. I just don't see why hybrid techs or even fuel consumption shouldnt be considered an option the next time they want to bring down speeds. As people pointed out in previous posts, getting rid of the refuelling rig is enough of a reason for fuel consumption regulations
"Mosley said the current situation in F1, where manufacturers spend hundreds of millions of pounds a year chasing higher revs and more horsepower, was outdated."
Hey, I may be considered a bit primitive but I would love to see engineers shoveling $#!t during pit stops!
I made a suggestion at least six months back that limiting the amount of fuel would be the ideal method to reduce speeds in order to increase safety and you guys hated the idea! Why now do most people see this as a good solution?
The boring part. Let's get rid of it. You never know if environmental issues can be expressed as engineering issues. I quote the MIA report:
