The Formula One Teams Association (FOTA) has announced that Formula One has inaugurated a comprehensive and externally audited carbon emissions reduction programme. This is in addition to steps being taken by the FIA to reduce the carbon footprint of the sport.
FOTA commissioned the environmental research analysis organisation Trucost to research and analyse the full range of activities performed by and within F1 teams and their suppliers, and to advise on measures that could be taken to reduce carbon emissions now and in the future. Trucost’s research and analysis shows that the carbon emissions caused by the testing and racing of F1 cars is a small proportion of the total carbon emissions generated by the sport as a whole, if one encompasses the whole F1 supply chain.
Formula 1 cars have traditionally provided an exciting and productive development platform for new automotive technologies. Many of these have been introduced into consumer production cars, F1 has played a role in developing turbocharging, fuel injection, variable valve timing and kinetic energy recovery systems. It is FOTA’s desire and intention to work with the FIA to continue to pioneer technologies that are appropriate to the challenges faced by society today and in the future, and that are applicable to products that will benefit mankind in the longer term.
Modern F1 is and must continue to be all about efficiency – and, whilst F1 cars are and must continue to be very fast and very exciting, it is also necessary and desirable that their engines and powertrains be as efficient as possible. With that in mind, working closely with the FIA, FOTA has committed to working to develop new F1 engine and powertrain regulations that will require all entrants from 2013 onwards to incorporate technologies designed to enhance fuel efficiency. At the same time, revisions to F1’s sporting regulations will enhance and incentivise the competitive benefit of further reducing fuel consumption.
“The good news is that, in conjunction with the FIA’s and FOTA’s recent successful efforts to improve efficiencies and restrict resources applied to F1, it has already been possible to reduce F1’s total carbon emissions,” says Martin Whitmarsh, the chairman of FOTA. “Moreover, building on what we have already achieved, and extrapolating what is now being planned, we anticipate that by 2012 F1 will have reduced its total carbon emissions by 12.4% compared with 2009. With the support of all its member teams, FOTA has committed to the continuation of this programme, and has undertaken to maintain continuous and independent analysis and assessment in order to ensure that these carbon emissions reduction targets are met or bettered, and to investigate where further carbon emissions reduction opportunities may exist. Measurement and management, in other words. In addition, the FIA and FOTA are already working together to tailor the 2013 technical regulations to ensuring that all engines and powertrains used in F1 by that date will showcase, and provide a platform for the ongoing development of, technologies designed to enhance fuel efficiency. This is a very exciting time for F1 and I am delighted that our sport has been able to take a global environmental lead in this way.”
Simon Thomas, Chief Executive of Trucost, says, “Formula 1 is fundamentally about efficiency – how to squeeze performance within the restrictions of physics and the rules. There is a growing need to transition from fossil fuel dependency to an economy that is more carbon efficient. In keeping with this trend, the F1 teams have collectively made a firm commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a significant way. This is consistent with F1’s position as a leader in technological innovation and illustrates what can be achieved by organisations not traditionally associated with the environmental agenda. We also believe that the engineering excellence that exists within F1 will have a part to play in the inevitable shift to more carbon efficient transportation”
Something needs to be done to create a more sensible order to the calendar – there is no logical reason for having Abu Dhabi and Bahrain at opposite ends of it unless the teams were all based in the middle east.
But… but… but… what about all the past fanfare about F1 being carbon-neutral and so on? You’ve been quite the cheerleader on this topic, Joe. I recall a number of posts claiming that F1 was “greener” than the Tour de France. Why the sudden desire to further greenwash the sport?
If they manage to cut carbon by 12.4% while also adding three teams then I am really impressed. I read elsewhere (BBC?) that their intent is to cut fuel consumption in half in eight years time but going to 1.4 L inline 4 or V6 with turbos that have the same power but consume only 80kg of fuel to todays 160kg over a race distance.
I do not doubt FOTA/FIA’s ability to make changes to improve efficiency. But they need a will to do it. I would also be happy if they went a bit further in 2013 and gave a whole new fuel or engine strategy and got away from petrol.
I also read the sponsors want F1 to be more green and that could be a big part of why they want to do this too, or maybe that is the cynic in me. I hope they manage it, though maybe just looking at the cars is short sighted, there are loads of other ways they could do things, for a start they could scale down the massive buildings they take to the paddock.
If it helps bring in better road cars then that is a good thing too.
That’s funny, those race cars don’t create enough emissions to worry about. Now the team transporters, ferry rides, airplanes, and all the fans traveling to races by plane, train, automobile, and ferry, now that might create some emissions. F1 cars are not street cars and don’t relate to street cars at all except for having 4 tires and a steering wheel. F1 needs to relearn that fact, it’s about the racing not the car manufactures advertising needs.
Toyota claimed the F1 KERS units were less sophisticated than the unit they had already run in the 24 hours of Tokachi. I have no idea what cars run in that race but if they run a more advanced KERS than F1 then F1 added nothing to the development of KERS.
That is a nonsense statement. Since the beginning of F1 the weight of fuel has had an effect on performance so engine manufacturers have been trying to reduce fuel consumption. This sounds like FOTA spinning something that is standard practise.
If F1 is remotely serious about cutting carbon emissions the answer is very simple. Ban wind tunnels and make them use CFD and straight line testing for all aero work. That would save more carbon than anything else they can possibly do. However I suspect their carbon saving plans are going to be like the first VW car. By the end of its frst year in production a list of upgrades had been identified. Instead of making them all in the short term they were strung out over 20 years so that each year they could claim to have made improvements.
WHAT IS GOING ON.
Racing cars must have powerful engines, must go round corners fast and MUST sound good. These cars today sound like screaming sewing machines, give me the sound of a 3.5 car, a 2.4 v8 is just to small. Anybody remember the sound of big v8′s v10′s and v12′s, proper engines and lots of noise.
If carbon needs to be cut do it other ways. But, these cars have to grow some b@lls.
Travis Berry
Nice point, well put, end of.
Cheers Andy
Oh good grief. Leave the cars alone. I don’t want F1 cars with blown Fiat Panda engines.
If they’re worried about the sport’s “carbon footprint” I suggest they look first at their fleet of 747s that crisscross the globe. I’ll bet the people who came up with this nonsense travel by private jet, since commercial airlines aren’t good enough for their oh-so-important-but-ecologically-concerned arses.
Right you are, Andy H. In addition, carbon emission control is none other than massive govt handouts of everybody else’s money to the usual mobsters. Banksters/politicians aim at taxing producers to death by means of a carbon tax scam. It’s all pure and simple fraud. Nothing wrong with CO2. Scientists and media on the other hand have been bought and paid for long ago. For Greenpeace read another Soros front etc. No one in his right mind needs any such nonsense anywhere near grand prix motor racing, where wine, women and song must always prevail.
Joe,
As above, there is one race in North America, one race in South America, one race in Austrailia, two races in the middle east (?), two in Asia. Lots of carbon but then that is not the point. The point is that picking a formula other than giving the engineers x gallons (imperial if you like) with a mileage goal is the answer. Period! Pump gas, 93 octane period. You build the engine, you build the hybrid, use regenerative braking. The only limits would be that any electrical storage be at zero when the flag drops.
We know the aero guys work and get the downforce back as the regs go against them. I believe the engine guys are just as smart. Give them fuel limits for a race, pump the gas (not BP) from the local station and let them go. If you continue to limit creativity as F1 has done, you will continue to achieve nothing. The engine can be whatever works, whatever displacement, Sterling cycle, Miller cycle, whatever—
In 1959, Roger Ward came to our high school (I’m old) after winning the Indy 500. I asked him why Indy cars had not adopted the clearly superior disc brakes used in F1. He was pretty crude in his response in front of several hundred high school kids. Today the indy cars are standardized and the passing we see is due to oval track design. But, you will note, the teams with the most resources win.
So, if F1 is going to be the pinnacle of anything, you have to let it go. Frame the regulations in a way that is clear but achieves the goals you want. Currently, we have been lucky that races have been half way interesting – no thanks to the commentary provided by Hobbs et al.
So, limit fuel usage to 6 mpg (imperial) in 2012 and increase the mileage requirement by 0.2 mpg per yr. If you put a 1000 ft/lb electric motor in your car, so be it. It starts with zero charge. Let’s see what happens.
The fans are tired of a bunch of old men who have been around for a long time and cannot agree on how to make this work.
I don’t watch F1 thinking about the environment, it’s getting silly now. I watch it for the excitement the roar of the engines the skill of the drivers. I do not care about anything other than my couple of hours every other week, god cant we leave alone for once.
What next recycling our body waste if we go to the race track to power the lights, or what about health and safety getting involved and the driver are no longer allowed to drive the car as it may be dangerous, our what about every driver getting on the podium as we don’t want to make then feel like they have not done a jolly good job, do we???
I never ever thought social engineering would be part of F1
Social engineering is an interesting thought. I believe that F1 must have more relevance than simply being a way in which a bunch of “suits” in venture capital land earn their gold-encrusted crusts. I think that F1 should be relevant to the automobile industry and to the world in general. I also think that it has great value in changing the image and the economies of some of the places that it visits. Such is the power of the exposure that F1 generates. Those of you who have been to my Audiences will know about Joe’s Theory of How Cars Will Save The World, and I think that the sport must try to show people everywhere that there are responsible people in the industry, looking for solutions.
I was at the Fans Forum on thursday. It was a well managed event and it was very informative to a point. Due to time pressures the fans were not allowed to come back with comments to the panels answers to the questions, on the point of engines this would have been very interesting. Most fans I spoke to shared my view on this subject. Bigger engines limit the fuel.
The panel took the line that the technology used had to be relevant for todays world i.e. turbos, kers and highly fuel efficient engines.
This is all well and good, and green, but this is sport. This is entertainment. Reduce the sports carbon footprint by reducing the logistical carbon footprint, sort the calender out for a start!
Ta for now,
Andy
the answer is simple – to immediately cut carbon emissions from F1 and improve the racing, stop holding races in Bahrain, China, Turkey, and Abu Dhabi.
to further improve F1, give each team 160kg of fuel per race of specified maximum density and energy content to do with what they like and use to the best effect. turbo’s vs KERS vs V12′s – bring it on!!
F1 budgets these days are several times higher (at least i’d have thought) than years ago when guys were using a new engine for each qualifying and race session.
engines aren’t expensive compared to days of simulated work on CFD programmes and countless hours in the wind tunnel refining the smallest details on wings and floors to give incremental performance gains that add nothing to ‘the racing spectacle’, or the fans enjoyment. all this aero development also provides nothing toward furthering road vehicle technology or ‘green’ capabilities. it also restricts podium places to those teams with the highest budget still.
i don’t know how F1 can claim to be the most technologicaly advanced race series when all of the bits that make the car go are so tightly regulated!!
the FIA want to standardise things to equalise performance and save cost. don’t do it with the engines – do it with the wings and floors. improve technology, improve racing, and save costs in one move.