That is a lengthy post, so let me break it down:
GitanesBlondes wrote:
Instead of 3MPG the cars will get the equivalent of 3.5MPG next season I think it was?
I don't know where that came from. I just know that the F1 site states a reduction from 160kg per race to 100kg per race. That is a 37.5% reduction, and no matter how you slice it, that is
HUGE.
This whole turbo experiment is an exercise in stupidity, and no doubt one of the dumbest ventures F1 is undertaking. No team actually wanted this. Mosley was the only one who did. Expensive engines that cost an ungodly amount of money, that there was no need for.
Of course it is cheaper to maintain engine freeze. It takes one variable out of the equation, and thus makes designing everything else cheaper, too. But sometimes change is necessary. For the longest time, the American auto-industry believed that "there is no substitute for cubic inches", and rattled on with 6 liter V8's and a carburetor. In my view, we should have never abandoned turbo's in the 1980's.
Per the staying relevant thing, I've made mention previously that the longest running joke regarding F1 is the on-going need for "relevance" within the automotive industry. The entire sport has no relevance to it any longer, and has not for decades.
Where did I say relevant to the auto industry? Relevant to the changing human perception of reality. I thought that was pretty clear in my previous post.
The world's oil supply will not be running out any time soon. The FUD regarding oil supply began back in the 1970s/1980s if I recall correctly, and persists to this day everywhere. A pity the media often ignores all the findings regarding new oil reserves...but now, that wouldn't really fit the agenda of attracting attention with bad news?
I know. The world's coal supply is not running out anytime soon, either. But they ARE finite, and most of humanity is beginning to realize that there must be better ways of powering mobility. The internal combustion engine is horribly inefficient, less than 20% of the energy generated is used for propulsion, the rest is wasted residual heat. And that is with turbos, atmospheric engines are even less efficient. So in that sense, the move to turbo engines with ERS is really a move towards increased efficiency. What's wrong with that?
I consume more fuel in a single year than a single F1 car does across an entire season.
Dude, what do you drive?!? We drive 15,000 miles per year, and even our gas-guzzling SUV gets 15 mpg (a little more actually, but rounding down for easier calc). That is a 1000 gallons per year, then, or about 3790 liters. An F1 car does 180 liters in a race, and that is NOT accounting for three practices, three Q sessions and any pre-season testing. 300km/180l = 1.66666, or roughly 1mpg. That is becoming increasingly indefensible in this day and age.
The attention is in the wrong place. It's not F1's job to be green. Leave it for the companies that actually produce cars that are used daily as opposed to 20 weekends a year. If you want companies pursuing racing for finding alternative technologies to be perhaps used in road cars one day, there's just the thing for that - prototype racing.
I can actually agree with this. It is not F1's job to be green. It is about increasing efficiency. On a different note, perception IS reality. To be perceived as cutting edge, F1 needs to change along with times.
Make no mistake, F1 is entertainment primarily, everything else is secondary.
Absolutely. And wouldn't it be more entertaining if the current status quo was upended and RBR/Vettel does not win everything? Hopefully, a rule change will do just that.
If it had anything to do with promoting advances in automotive technology, the rules would not have become so narrow as to stifle any, and all meaningful creativity. Creativity is focused on aerodynamic tricks primarily, all of which have zero road relevance. If F1 had any real interest in being relevant, they wouldn't be asking for cheap tires that are focused on producing a spectacle. Nor would they use gimmicks such as DRS that are the antithesis of racing. Remember it's called "racing", not "passing".
Again, I can sort of agree with all of this, except that the tightening of rules actually induces creativity. But as far as F1's irrelevance to real-world driving, we're on the same page. But I do think that things like aerodynamics increase our understanding of the phenomenon, which is good for all sort of things. And the focus on aero is a direct result of the engine freeze, methinks. Since no gains are to be had there, they are gonna look for it elsewhere.
[edit: typo]
