I don’t know John Leicester, but I do know that he is what we call “an agency man”, with more than 20 years experience with the Associated Press, a venerable institution that is generally trustworthy. For the last five years Leicester has been a sports columnist and he has just produced a very good column called “Fuel-careful F1 less of a guilty pleasure”. I think it is something that all F1 fans should read and so I am reproducing it, in full below.
“As Earth’s atmosphere warms alarmingly and fills with heat-trapping gases, and the writing on the wall – “People, we’re in trouble!” – looms ever larger, Formula One has steadily become a guilty pleasure, the motorsport equivalent of blue whale burger or wearing panda fur. All that precious fuel going up in smoke, speed, and outrageous noise. Unsustainable and increasingly unjustifiable. So F1 deserves a pat on the back for now doing its little bit for the planet. Let’s not kid ourselves: Strapping drivers into combustion engines can never be a “green” sport. Polar bears on retreating ice sheets shouldn’t dance with joy -“We’re saved!” – simply because F1 downgraded this season from monster 2.4-liter, V8 engines to somewhat less viciously thirsty 1.6-liter, V6 turbo hybrid engines. But it is something. More than that, it recognizes that if we are to have much of a collective future, then everyone must make and accept compromises, eke out and protect resources and learn to do more with less. To cover a meager 190 miles, the length of all F1 races except the shorter Monaco Grand Prix, the V8s guzzled around 50 gallons of fuel – sometimes a bit more, sometimes less, depending on the track and conditions. That was just on race day. Now add practice and qualifying sessions, and multiply all this by 19 races a season, for a truly staggering fuel bill. In the real world, a midsize Toyota Prius hybrid might cover about 2,500 miles on those same 50 gallons, almost enough to cross the United States from Washington DC to Los Angeles, according to fuel economy figures for that model from the U.S. government’s Environmental Protection Agency. F1 wouldn’t be F1 without excess. Fans worldwide wouldn’t tune in for World Champion Sebastian Vettel driving a Prius. F1 boss Bernie Ecclestone got fabulously rich with the sales pitch of bigger, faster, costlier, noisier equals vroooom. “Rush,” director Ron Howard’s glorification of 1976 world champion James Hunt has the notorious bad boy of F1 mouth-rinsing with champagne and puffing on an illegal-looking cigarette before races in his early Formula Three days. Swap the risk and glamour of F1 for quiet-as-a-mouse electric engines and showers of dandelion tea on the podium and you can be sure that petrol-heads would walk away. But as road cars become more fuel efficient, with electric and hybrid-engine technology making increasing inroads, F1 needed to reconnect with its time or risk becoming an anachronism, racing on regardless the costs to the environment. This season’s switch to fantastically complex hybrid engines puts F1 back ahead of the technological curve. That is exactly where the sport must be to retain fans and stay relevant in today’s energy-challenged world. The engines still generate most of their power from burning fuel but also recuperate and reuse far more energy from braking and exhaust gases than the previous V8 cars and their KERS energy-recovery systems. New rules slash by about one-third the amount of fuel that teams use in the cars and also limit the rate at which they burn it. Again, that doesn’t make them anywhere near green. The 100-kilogram-per-race allotment of fuel would still get a Prius from Paris to Moscow. But at least F1 can now argue that it is going in the right direction. If improvements in fuel economy, engine technology, energy recovery and hybrid-power know-how also bleed over into future road cars, F1 will be able to stick that feather in its cap, too. Critics who loved the fiery crackle of throaty V8s complain that the new engines are too quiet. But that nostalgia over-plays the supposed link between engine noise and the appeal of F1. The V6s certainly sound different, with a top-end squeal like a dentist’s drill. That will take getting used to. Ultimately, however, what makes F1 watchable – or not – isn’t noise but the quality and closeness of the racing. V8 races may have been loud. But many of them were boring, too. Also misleading is the argument that F1 drivers shouldn’t need to economize fuel or tires and instead should be able to race flat-out from first lap to last. Ferrari President Luca di Montezemolo is in this camp – itself a good indicator of how poorly his team has adapted to the new regime. But not every race needs non-stop wheel-to-wheel action to be interesting. In fact, you’d be naive and sorely disappointed if you expect that. The unfolding chess game during races of teams balancing the need for speed with the need to make tires and fuel last, the strategies they employ and adapt to squeeze the most out of those resources, make F1 a more cerebral sport. Fuel economy isn’t beside the point – for F1 or for any of us. It is the point. It must be.
joeblogsf1 
Couldn’t have put it better myself.
+1
very succinctly put, a good article indeed
Firstly, to accept this view one must buy into the man made global warming scenario. The conflicting views on this make judgement perilous even for the supposedly well informed.
Secondly, the fuel burnt on track during a season of development,testing,and race weekends is insignificant when compared to the energy used in the design,manufacture and delivery of both components and the completed cars all around the world, along with the corresponding staff and operational systems.
It is a fatuous argument to suggest F1 is in any way ‘ green’ and indeed if there is any benefit in it even attempting to be!
As has been said many times F1 is in the entertainment business and getting spectators to venues, running night races and all the hoopla of organisation that that entails makes any green credentials spurious.
The key issue in the world is population and as population rises then more ‘ entertainment’ is needed, more aspirations and more consumption will drive out any possible savings in F1.
So all of this engine driven , make it greener, business is just so much hot air.
Oh dear, I fear you will get assaulted for this…
Well, you are probably correct but looking beyond the obvious is where the real argument lies. Proper debate is a precious thing and often trampled underfoot of the populist clamour.
I agree with the author with regard to F1 and how it is doing it’s bit. I don’t agree with the comments about Global Warming. The planet warming and cooling is a natural cycle that has been happening since the Earth was formed!
For Peter and Nathen, sorry you have drunk the no global warming cool aid, but it is climate change. If you don’t believe in it then get on board with this, fossil fuels are getting scarce. We will need alternate energy sources and they need to be efficient. You can be a Luddite and buy into whatever you want, but buisness HAS to move on and produce more with less or be left behind and go out of buisness. That is a simple unchangeable fact of life. As is the fact that improvent costs more in the initial phases. Cling to your notions and even IF on the small chance you on are right on climate change ultimately you got it wrong because efficiency and energy independace and security passed you by. This is a part of the past you can’t afford to cling on too so a few large corporations can maximize profits from a declineing resource.
Adam Oil and Gas are NOT fossil fuels, and they are certainly not scarce on earth. They did not come from plants and animals but are more than likely produced within the earth. You need to aquatint yourself with some real science and modern thinking. Hydrocarbons are very abundant throughout the solar system and in places where life as we understand it does not exist. As for CO2 and the “green house effect” that is as fanciful as the earth being at the center of the Universe. The temperature at the surface on every planet and moon with an atmosphere is dependent on the distance from the Sun, and the atmospheric pressure. What gases make up the atmosphere matters little. CO2 warming the surface by re-radiating infra red radiation breaks the second law of thermodynamics, but given climate scientist are not physicists they ignore this inconvenient science. Most people don’t have a clue about the science, but the vast majority have caught on that it has all been a huge con.
I think that as a motor racing fan you should know that modelling fluid flow is difficult. As Ferrari or McLaren. Modelling the atmosphere is several orders of magnitude more difficult than modelling the fluid flow around an F1 car. The fact is that there has been no real warming over the last 20 years (meaning the model is wrong), it may have been warmer in the 1930s (the figures have been adjusted to account for factors such as coverage) and there has been the kind of skulduggery that F1 would be proud of.
Oil reserves have always been scare. If you go back say 70 years, projections would have indicate we would have run out by now. Now we have fracking and oil shale.
Motor racing is always going to be an anathema to some. F1 can help develop technologies but can’t be beholden to the green lobby
F1 should not ignore the world. You have a different definition of the green lobby to that of others
That’s not what global warming is or climate change as its now called. While the earth does warm and cool in a cyclical nature, the rate of temperature change is dramatically increased. The main discussion is not if its happening but is it man effecting it. technically we are still in an ice age so yes we will be warming. Does all the methane and carbon dioxide we produce the main reason it has accelerated, probably possibly and maybe. Regardless of whether we are or are not causing global warming its still a good idea to reduce our pollution as clean air is infinitely preferable to dirty air, it still a good idea to use a our finite fossil fuels efficiently and so on even if its just on the basis that resource poverty causes conflict if nothing else.
Oh dear… The crackpot denialists are starting 😉
You know sometimes when 99% of scientists agree on something they can just be right and not dying to build a giant conspiracy against you having fuel.
Face it who is more likely to lie about climate science? The mid-pay scientists who spend their lives looking at the evidence or the fossil fuel giants who fund political parties and media spokesmen?
You don’t have to be a sandal wearing hippy to realise that climate denialism means you’ve been had…
Sorry but i fundamentally disagree with your argument there. The greens are making huge money out of the climate change agenda and the pro-climate change scientists have a much larger budget than anyone who dares to try and challenge it, hence having more scientists supporting that stance.
Many years ago 99% most people said the earth was flat and people saying anything else were crazy……
That said, as a race we should always be looking to evolve and adapt to the changing world and how to manage our resources so I will applaud any efforts made to do so, whether it “saves the planet” or not
Long ago, the 1% of people who believed the earth was round, not flat, happened to be the scientific community of the time–the same group of people who today say that climate change is real and likely man-made. So I think you’re biting your own tail on this one.
Your analogy about 99% of people thinking the earth is flat is very apt, of course it was a scientist who discovered it wasn’t flat and a scientific concensus was quickly achieved. It took a lot longer to convince the average guy in the street though…
Oh no! Ridicule rather than debate; the bullets of the uneducated.
It’s reached the point where those who say they want to “debate” this are those who have adopted the Ostrich Strategy.
For those who aren’t hiding from it, the time for debate is over and it’s now past time to face up to it.
The climate has been hanging since climate began. Besides the ice age, it is worth considering the concept of urbanisation, and the heat island effect. As cities get larger, they get warmer too. Yes, burning hydrocarbons contributes to atmospheric pollution and the increase in atmospheric green house gases, so does a proper volcano explosion. The result, of this is an increase in the flora of the planet, as noted in the Amazon basin.
In the future, we will be looked at in wonder by people who will try to figure out how is it that we managed to blow the oil trust fund so quickly and inefficiently – as they’re digging up plastic shopping bags to convert them into Goretex tissue grafts. Therefore, in my humble opinion, preserving fossil fuels for the sake of preservation alone is all the reason necessary to make the systems that use it more efficient.
I’m all for reducing hydrocarbon content, to clean up air quality and to conserve a precious resource, not to save the earth.
A mid-pay scientist, and crackpot. Evidently.
AuraF1 Read my post above. If you are in possession of the empirical data that demonstrates that the the greenhouse effect is real, and is caused by tiny changes in the concentration of a trace gas in the atmosphere then you will be a hero to the alarmist green community. For those of us that have been involved in real science one way or another all our lives the evidence is missing. As for the 99% bit I doubt its 0.9% and more likely 0.09%.
Prior to WWII science was predominantly privately funded. Since WWII it has been predominantly government funded. Scientists are paid to come up with the “right” answer.
Too many people confuse technology and science. We have made huge strides in the 20th century in our technology, predominantly privately funded. Our scientific understanding has stagnated because many new discoveries have been squashed and ridiculed because they are counter to the “accepted science” or “consensus science” Neither of those terms have any place in science but are thrown in the face of those whose challenge what is often completely bogus science because it would cut off the supply of money. Just as F1 has gone down a route the big manufacturers want for fear of losing the money, science is predetermined by governments. F1 is ignoring it fans at it peril we have endurance racing for saving fuel, and science is not evolving our understanding as that would be against what government want.
The ways of the world never change and parallels exist everywhere. People just refuse to see them. The industrial revolution was the age of enlightenment. We are in the age of stupid which started just before WW1. After 100 years its time we came out of it.
Yes the planets climate has changed naturally in the past. What is happening now is absolutely created by man. You can deny all you want but it is happening, it is caused by humans and it is visible and scientifically measurable.
I would like to see a poll of where the deniers, like you, live. Where I live we see the effects of climate change, the denier population is zero.
Climate change ” deniers” is so much crap. Matthew Hopkins, the Witchfinder General , would be proud of that concept. Just because someone disagrees with your personal view it does not make that person’s view any the less valid than yours. Get over it. The way that how the climate is, has been changed into a semi religion is absurd.
Travelling the world one sees the climate change. Now, we can have an argument about what is causing it, but we cannot deny its existence. My view is that pollution plays a big role and much pollution comes from cars. It is also hard to argue against the fact that hydrocarbons are not going to last forever.
Global warming or cooling is irrelevant. The earth is a closed system and we are filling it with ever increasing amounts of pollution. Run your car inside your garage with the door closed and see what happens. Does the temperature inside the garage increase? How knows and who cares. The reality is that you will still eventually die inside your garage…
What the deniers miss is the bigger picture – the point behind Joe’s article on F1 and also behind “man-made increased climate change”, which is giving us a bigger variety of natural disasters than ever before. The eco-system is akin to a spinning top – knock it out of whack and it’ll give you chaos. I can even sense the change in climate here in the UK since I was a boy in the 1990s, never mind visiting places around the world – so I am surprised that others cannot.
F1 is progress – so is this technology. And it is technology that will get us out of this mess, just as it has now helped F1 stay at the forefront of Motorsports.
Applying this point to Formula E, gives us the result that FE is not innovative enough (i.e. no battery swap pit-stops), and that F1 has already covered it off by moving to a hybrid power unit, like the car industry is now gradually doing.
Yes but not in a period of just over a century.
“Buy into the man made global warming scenario”, I take it you don’t?
Your in Shanghai look out your window what can you see, not much I wager
+1
Well said Mr Fox! Now pardon me Joe while I get down from my Stegasaurus and find a tree to hug…..or maybe I could find a nice Matra V12 to hug instead…..I know which is more to my liking.
No, he should be applauded. Human beings as a race will never be ‘green’. We always want more, better, cheaper etc. True, ‘every little bit counts’ as they say but I’d imagine that is being more than cancelled out by the worlds continued propulation growth.
Peter fox. I agree.
As a scientist, albeit a biomedical one, and a car enthusiast/engine builder/tuner, I’m very interested in the new technology and all that stuff – I love what’s going on in F1 at the moment – especially when entertained with fantastic on track ‘dog fights’ as in Bahrain,
But as far as evidence for global warming is concerned, I don’t buy it – it’s weak and circumstantial, at best the recent change in weather pattern forms a simple ‘correlation’ with changes in human activity – there is no concrete evidence to nail a ‘causation’. There is however plenty of evidence for leaps in logic -especially out of the mouths of politicians with vested interests,
And if anyone believes that when we’re all forced to drive 200 mpg hybrids, the cost of mooring will fall then they are mistaken. If we consume less the cost per unit will rise to keep the status quo .. . and that goes for ALL energy forms. And if the argument is energy resources are finite so we should consume less, it ain’t going to happen, – there IS plenty of evidence for that….and the real problem we face IS POPULATION.
We are not going to have a debate about global warning.
Read your own article Joe, this is entirely a debate about Global Warming.
No, that was called a final word in the subject
Joe, you are more than intelligent enough to realize what you started 😉 ! Whatever… the Green Eco Fascists and their henchmen lawyers and other parasites as a conduit, will rule the Earth. Using Nature is a convenient excuse
Please tell me how one group (usually stereotyped as ‘broke-ass hippies’) can afford better lawyers than the other group (that has included the richest man ever in real terms, John D. Rockefeller)?
Ok Joe, the comments above and below are not a debate about Global warming… not one word of them…
There are no comments below…
As a biomedical scientist, don’t you agree that technology will fix the problems? There are already biofuels in production to continue the oil cycle, or resolve the atmospheric problems in the long run.
Also, when technology can provide everyone with an adequate standard of living, surely the global population will top out at 11 or 12 billion? There’s no need to continue having kids, when you know all your kids will now grow old safely. And two kids on average worldwide will then always replace their parents.
“As Earth’s atmosphere warms alarmingly and fills with heat-trapping gases”
Nope. Earth cooling for the last 17 years.
C02 effect downgraded repeatedly by real scientists..
Earth cooling for the last 17 years?? Citation needed.
HADCRUT3 and HADCRUT4 are the best stats in the business.
Why do you think that they started talking about “Global climate CHANGE” in scientific circles? That entire Al Gore / Michael Mann “hockey stick” thing was discredited over a decade ago due to bad science and bad statistical methods. Oh, and it didn’t show the Little Ice Age, which we know happened, not to mention the Roman Warming and the Medieval warming.
But hope springs eternal for people like you — there is a good chance of an El Nino, which would raise temps a bit this summer. (and you thought us “deniers” were uneducated hicks?)
Now Joe, Fox hunting is banned!
Somewhere, somebody still thinks the Earth is flat… which means we have conflicting views about that too. Perhaps it’s perilous to judge about that too…
It used to be that ignorance was a just side effect of folks not having a chance to be educated… but now we have an industry devoted to, not only manufacturing ignorance, but also producing people who refuse to be educated. The signs of its success are everywhere…
I agree with you Peter Fox. It’s the logistics that use the fuel, and in any case population growth is the elephant in the room. +1.
You have missed completely the point of this article in your comments. It’s main point is that F1 should be relevant for the current world as it pretends to be the pinnacle of motor tech, and therefore F1 should have made the changes regardless of global warming and other related environmental considerations.
No, you do not have to buy in to the man-made global warming scenario.
Regardless of your opinion on that, it can never be a bad thing to use less resources. If for nothing else, then at least so that we can keep driving our cars without having to break the bank every time.
Oil is a finite resource. It is however true that the higher the oil price, the more oil we find (due to oil fields that in the past were not profitable will become so and more money can also be spent on prospecting). However, the price of oil and all petroleum-based products will steadily increase – more than what is motivated by inflation.
As cars (all cars) become more efficient, it will at least slow down the price increase somewhat. If Formula 1 can lead that development and sell the idea to the pucblic, I think that it is great!
I think you are missing the point. It’s true that a greener F1 won’t save the world. But F1 has the power to make green technology sexy, and THAT could make a real difference.
That’s exactly what I wanted to say.
Green F1 won’t save the world, but millions of new engines using ideas developed when building F1 power units will surely help.
And remember: the cars using much less fuel are more less as fast as old ones.
++
Peter Fox, your arguments are perfectly reasonable and nicely put. Nice to have a like-minded person on Joe’s blog.
‘The key issue is world population…..’ Nailed it in one phrase, my friend. I am a very long-time enthusiast for F1 but have, with great regret, to accept that the writing is on the wall. Great Kudos to John Leicester for writing with
courage. Even more to Joe for giving us the opportunity to read the truth about F1. And to yourself Peter Fox for really laying it on the line.
Oh brother. It would be a shame if we became more efficient and environmentally friendly for nothing. Isn’t that the attitude here? It’s insignificant so it does not matter? The same thought process that makes people think that since 100% of crime can’t be stopped it is pointless to have laws and enforcement?
Regardless of how insignificant of an impact you think we are making, we are making an impact. You can see that by simply looking at a satellite image of deforestation, etc…
Personally, I don’t see how 7 billion people couldn’t make an impact. Our exponential growth as a species is not slowing… and only a fool would argue that our impact will not exponentially grow as well. So, the smart thing is to recognize this fact, and work towards a change. Unless you are one of those folks who just could care less because you will wind up in the ground one day anyway… and it is the future generations problem to worry about. What a pathetically meaningless existence for you.
Good for you Mr Fox see Lawson further down the comments. The whole thing is politics and money, no global warming and impending doom at all.
[Sigh…]
Couldn’t agree more. Well said and I would just add 2 things. CO2 induced warming is complete garbage because it ignores the second law of thermodynamics, and that is just for starters. Secondly oil and gas are NOT fossil fuels and are more abundant in the earth than we could ever imagine.
If we want clean air, which has nothing to do with CO2, then we start with electricity generation and go nuclear. They talk in the press of clean coal but what they are talking about is removing the CO2 which doesn’t clean the air. Dirty air is from NOx and soot from incomplete combustion, something China is good at. In the west we have solved these issues.
Today’s challenged world is the age of stupid. Joe I spent half a lifetime as an engineer trying to save fuel and clean engines up, you are confusing matters with this article. The first sentence was complete unadulterated rubbish.
Good to see someone talking sense. F1 should be the pinnacle of automotive technology driven by the best drivers in the world. If they could just agree a cost cap that would see no more need for the Maldonados of F1 we would really have created a golden age of motor sport.
You are usually the only voice worth reading Joe, thanks for sharing another great piece.
An excellent article. The FIA should have been banging this drum as soon as the new regs were agreed, and certainly in the run up to the new season. Perhaps then they would have fought off the ‘I dont like the new noise’ whiners before they gained momentum. Having said that, perhaps it means more coming from a journalist ‘independent’ to the the F1 press…..
True, but you are right about the FIA. News these days is largely directed by public relations people and there was no lead at all from the federation.
If I were the FIA President I would have offered my communication chief a role in road safety in Afghanistan.
The FIA is not F1’s marketing department. That role, a rather rewarding role, is held by FOM. Rather than going after the FIA communication chief I would be having the lawyers look for ways to hold FOM’s feet to the fire and have them do their job instead of actively undermining the sport.
That said, I can’t help but be a little cynical about all the noise surrounding the new formula. Ecclestone has always seemed to be of the mind that controversy is as good at keeping F1 in the headlines and on tongues as any tight, always on message, always positive (even if it’s a lie) corporate speak. The current antagonism seems to be stirring up attention, and is probably wetting the appetite for learning more about the new F1. In the end, and taking a longer view, he is probably getting the job done quite well…I hate to say.
He states” Ultimately, however, what makes F1 watchable – or not – isn’t noise but the quality and closeness of the racing”
If it was the case, I wouldn’t have watched a second F1 race as the first was an utter bore. What had me return was the whole ambience of the event and part of this was the hair-on-arm raising sounds. An empirical measure: small boys (and big ones) don’t turn their heads when I drive past in my 4×4 but always do when my V8 with a performance exhaust system does.
Sound (not noise) is important. Ask anyone at an air show who hears a Spitfire or Lancaster. Who would go to a rock concert if it was like Matins at York Minster.
I support 100% the efforts to make F1 the very peak of motorsport but it has to have some emotional joy and sounds of the sport are like beauty in a woman or aroma in a rose. Without it 😦
If you’re going to motor racing for a rock concert soundtrack you’re doing it wrong. Same as going to a music festival for seeing sporting action…
Some of us (the quieter ones) never go to rock concerts, because we like to hear the music, not a wall of sound. Just sayin’…
Agreed Bob, the noise is a very important part of the overall “F1 show” when one watches the race at the circuit – (as I do at Silverstone every year).
It’s probably not that important to arm-chair fans that only ever see F1 on the television and have no concept of the noise – hence, they lack credibility when giving their comments on the subject.
Annoyance at the new engines’ noise is, in my view, short-sighted, but understandable. However, refusing to watch races because of the new engines’ noise is downright idiotic.
Global average temperatures have not risen for over 17 years. Polar bear populations have been at their highest for decades. I stop reading the lies at that point.
If this guy wants to peddle blatant untruths so be it. I just a little sad that you are happy to perpetuate the errors Joe by reprinting it in full. You always expect the ‘cut and paste Internet journalist brigade’ not to do this sort of thing. Maybe you should live by your own rules!
You don’t believe that trying to save the planet is a good idea. Visit Shanghai sometime…
First I’m an environmentalist.
Secondly I was in Shanghai walking along The Bund only last month.
Thirdly 5 years ago I was fully supportive of the global warming/climate change concept. Someone told me they did not believe in it and I was wrong. Shocked as I was I decided to hunt down the truth. After 12 months research I decided I had been conned. Climate change is all about politics and nothing to do with environmentalism. My journey of discovery took me from the Facist Germany to the Club of Rome, from Enron to the lies told by the IPCC (exposed in a great book called The Delinquent Teenager). We have been spun a great lie based on computer projections – not one of which has proved correct. The environmental Greenshirts want the poor to stay poor and prevent the 3rd world from developing. Shanghai will be much cleaner in 30 years when they can afford to look after the environment just like the smogs of Victorian London have gone. It is because I care for the planet and the people on it that I reject what you say in your reply. I would be happy to meet up some time and share more of this with you.
BTW I fully support the new F1 regulations because they promote new technology and save fuel. It’s new technology that will improve peoples live like it has for the past 200 years.
One last thought: co2 represents 0.04% of the atmosphere. Man produces 4% of the total co2 released annually – the rest is natural. What’s the biggest greenhouse gas? Water vapour by a long way – I’ll leave you to do the maths.
Great site by the way and thanks for allowing me to comment.
Great reply Richard and so nice to see someone speaking from a point of view based on real research rather than just regurgitating what the world’s media churns out.
However I must warn you that logic and evidence are sometimes not welcomed here. What people don’t realise is that the IPPC is a UN organisation, the same UN that administers the Carbon Trade market, which has taken in literally trillions of $. So the same guys who are earning the money from Global Warming are the guys telling us that Global Warming Exists and is a problem! If this was a casino group paying for research that then ‘found’ that gambling was good for people and tried to advertise this ‘finding’ as a fact people would laugh.
Why F1 needs to be turned into a tool to help the UN lie to and then steal from the entire world is beyond me. Why F1 fans are so keen to support our sport being used in this manner is even more of a mystery. And no amount of lies and theft will help the environment, nor will false claims about CO2 no matter how much those claims may be believed.
Thanks Peter! I’m a veteran of The Guardian Environment comments section so my sword is sharp and my Kevlar vest well oiled!
The sad thing is there there are so many environmental issues that are far more important than Co2 emissions. By example Joe’s response seems to conflated the issues global warming and smog in China. If chemistry and thermodynamics was understood, even to a small degree, by the general population, then they would realise the difference between emitting pollution and plant food from an exhaust pipe and the effects thereof. 30 years of controlling propaganda will take some time to undo.
Richard Lawson your 2 posts echo what I have replied in part above. Joe is confusing so called “Global warming” with what is by all accounts a chronic smog problem in China and many other Asian nations. The trouble is and I’m sure you have come across this money for real environmental protection has been diverted into the false “saving the planet” meme. I have until recently worked for a manufacturer of engines and it is my opinion that regulations have now gone too far reducing NOx and particulates at the expense of saving fuel. We now inject urea into the exhausts of diesels so that the air coming out the exhaust is cleaner than the air going in. But we could be using 20% less fuel today which in the greater scheme of things is vastly more beneficial to the environment than burning more fuel and trying to make the air cleaner.
As for the technology being used in F1 I doubt it will hit our road cars and here is why. Wright Aeronautical used turbo compounding on the R3350 18 cylinder radial in the 50’s on DC7’s and Constellations. They were marvels of engineering but far too complicated for commercial airlines and in common with the P&W R4360 and the aircraft they powered disappeared from use as soon as the jet age arrived. Simpler engines such as the std R3350, R2800 and R1830 of the DC3 are still to this day to be found in commercial operations. In the 90’s Scania used a turbo compound developed by Holset in Huddersfield in a Truck. They refused to sell the truck in the UK as it would not have suited UK operations, and again other technology took over. Cummins engine Company who owned Holset also developed several turbo compound models but always found easier and more cost effective ways of achieving the same ends and never found them commercially viable. Search for Holset and you will see many developments going on with turbo chargers and heat recovery.
Meeting emissions and improving fuel economy have often been mutually exclusive. We need to use our technology to simplify our cars, not produce regulations that mandate all this complication which is where I see matters heading. In all of this we see the customer being forgotten and we are being sold over complicated bits of crap that no one can fix. The only way this technology on display will make it into road cars is if they mandate reducing CO2 emissions, which I believe they are trying to do. So we come the full circle of lies. Manufactures love selling us expensive stuff, just so long as they are not disadvantaged by doing so. And they currently achieve this via regulation rather than competition. Now where is my Model T
You must have heard about “The Delinquent Teenager…” from Fox news. Donna La Framboise is one of our Canadian embarrassments I’m afraid to say. You are resting you argument on a book written by a person with a Bachelor of Arts degree in woman’s studies.
What shocking thing did you learn from her? How about that university science students actually conduct most of the research or other such horrible truths.
Reducing pollution is always a good idea. However, tackling the population explosion is the real problem humanity faces but the politicians do not want to address that so they are going after one side-effect. Walter Cunningham (Apollo 7) has an interesting take on the climate change ‘thesis’ http://waltercunningham.com/factsfaith.pdf
The earth will survive whatever humans do to it (but we may not)
“Global average temperatures have not risen for over 17 years. Polar bear populations have been at their highest for decades.”
Please provide the data from which this is pulled. I am not prepared ro rely on hearsay or “It’s so because I think it is.” That goes for everyone. You can convince me that the world is a cube if you wanted – but show me the proof.
I think Richard was being sarcastic.
Joe — of course “Saving the planet” is a great idea. But to do the right thing due to a HOAX (or at least horrible science) is akin to “saving the sheep from the wolves” due to that kid who yelled for attention.
You’ve been to China and India, why not tell ’em to stop polluting the earth? It’s not your country, nor mine, nor Europe, that is doing the increasing damage.
I know its a motoring blog, but i could not stop myself from responding to this.
Why should china and India stop developing. The damage has already been done by the developed nations. Green house gases emissions started with the industrial revolution and we all know where that happened.
India and china should STOP development, because development heats up the planet. HA
I am an Indian, and i donot understand this. Let us develop to European levels on per capita incomes and standard of living first and then tell us to stop polluting.
If damage has been done by the developed nations, can’t we learn from that and change how development occurs? No one is suggesting India and China stop developing, only that they learn lessons from mistakes already made.
For example, there were tremendous smog problems in the US, especially in Los Angeles, caused by auto emissions. Devices were invented to drastically reduce nitrous oxides, and fuel economy standards were enforced. The result has been a dramatic reduction in US air pollution from autos. Don’t you think newly developing nations can learn lessons from this and proactively prevent the same problems? Nixon is not the most popular president we have had, but to his credit he did start the EPA and address air and water quality issues – not that all the problems are solved, mind you.
China right now has very serious problems with air quality caused by coal burning. In the US scrubbers are required on coal fired power plants to reduce acid and soot emissions. Perhaps China should take a look at the economic costs of air pollution, not only health costs, but quality of life costs and see if it might make economic sense to install systems like this. My understanding is that wealthy Chinese have sealed houses and air filtration systems. This isn’t a solution. Wouldn’t it be better to prevent the problems in the first place?
We can learn from our mistakes.
What the hell are you reading? Global average temperature hasn’t risen? Polar bear populations at their highest in decades? Maybe the population in the villages, looking for food, have increased as the ice pack disappears.
You write too well to be stupid so it must be ignorance.
In some reports, there is more ice than has been seen for years. In others there is less. Fact is, the evidential basis is founded on info that covers about 1 Billionth or less of the time the planet has been here. One can’t describe such evidence as fact. It is guesswork at best. As to Polar bears, it is said that these evolved from Grizzly bears, so they won’t die out they will just adapt. If ice packs truly melt, then global sea travel will be easier, cheaper and use less fuel burn. See? Not all things that look bad, are really bad. It just needs people to adapt. One final point, every single day on the planet, or so I read somewhere, a species of some sort/type, becomes extinct. And every day, another new species of some sort/type, is discovered for the very first time. It’s called Evolution, or Natural Selection. The planet evolves, so do we. Stay Calm! Don’t Panic!
“Oooh, those cherries over there look more to my taste than all the others. I’ll pick those ones and dismiss all the others.”
Mind you, your attack on Joe for reprinting the story demonstrates a pretty poor ability to follow an argument. He has openly described the source, explained why he feels it’s a strong source and made it clear that it’s an opinion piece. That places him a long way separate to the type of blind and misleading re-hashing that he’s attacked in the past.
I do believe that if we are to stand a chance of salvaging something reasonable out of, we need to improve the critical thinking skills of the population at large as a matter of urgency.
Well said Richard, I could not agree more. I too stop reading once the “global warming” tosh is spouted. Folk need to read ALL the research done into this in recent years, not just the biased view perpetuated by scientists desperate for more grant money. Hence the scaremongering.
The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is happening and that human activity is a major cause of this. If I were to read all of the research, most of it would support that position. A small amount would not. If I were to base my views purely on that, my views would be that global warming is real and caused by human activity.
What is the more likely to be correct:
Either:
1. The vast majority of scientists are wrong and a tiny minority are right.
or:
2. The vast majority of scientists are right and a tiny minority are wrong.
I read a lot of global warming denier comments on the internet. They are all utterly convinced that they are correct, yet they provide no concrete evidence for their assertions. None of these people are scientists of any kind, let alone scientists who study the natural environment, weather patterns and whatever, yet I’m expected to believe their opinions. Who are you and what are your credentials?
Do you have any proof of “biased views” (evidently your own biased views aren’t an issue) or scientists being “desperate” for money? Do you honestly believe that we can pour tonnes of crap in the atmosphere, earth and bodies of water and it will have no effect whatsoever?
I assume you also believe that the earth is flat, that the heart pumps heat around the body and that the sun revolves around the earth?
Personally I didn’t believe the IPCC report that said that the Himalayan Glaciers would all be gone in, what was it? 10 years? Something silly like that. And then they found there was more ice, not less? The guy running the IPCC was discredited some while back. It’s better to listen to David Bellamy, but then he isn’t given air time by the BBC and so on, as he might spoil the Tax party that Governments are enjoying from inflicting higher energy costs on us. Also, haven’t you noticed how many MPs of all parties in the UK, are also on the Boards or Advisors to the Renewable and Green industries? Now MPs are renowned for their trough abilities where money is concerned. Doesn’t it not ring any bells with you that these people just might be having you on, so that they can make fat sums of cash from you??
The Met Office says the ‘no warming for 17 years’ is a myth and put into circulation by a known climate denialist journalist who is funded by one of the fossil fuel backed think tanks.
You can either believe the actual scientists who wrote the report or the journalist who ‘cut and paste’ his lies from an industry funded strategy paper…
You know when Joe points out the bottom feeder F1 sites who have no access, attendance and just parrot pre-written sound bites? They are the equivalent of the denialist rags, just pouring out dross from a handful of think tanks that don’t employ scientists. Listening to these people on climate science is like listening to Planet F1’s website pundits over Joe who’s actually spoken to the real people and been to the races.
The IPCC, the Met Ofice Hadley Centre and the UEA all agree there has been no warming for 17 years and 5 months. Scientists need to fund there existence. I’d rather read the raw stats thanks.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/10/the-great-credibility-gap-yawns-ever-wider/
> “The IPCC, the Met Ofice Hadley Centre and the UEA all agree there has been no warming for 17 years and 5 months.”
This is an astonishing and important claim, and is potentially of great importance.
Your link does not however provide quotes from any of these three organisations. It links to an article by Christopher Monckton, a known denier with no relevant professional qualifications. I wouldn’t trust him to speak my weight.
Can you provide links confirming your headline from the source organisations? Thank you.
HadCRUT is thought by most to be the best stats in the business. It comes from the East Anglica people who (if you are in the loop on this stuff) have been bigtime warmists over the years. In order to deal with that, they had an email conversation which talked about “hide the decline” and such. These emails were later leaked, and became quite a controversy. Perhaps you remember that from a couple of years ago?
The REAL climate people have acknowledges that there has been (in their terms) a “pause” since 1998 or thereabouts. They deal with that openly, including buried in IPCC v5 (the latest one). While they “hope” that the temsp will increase (to keep their funding going, to be proved correct, etc) they acknowledge the “pause”.
That such info is routinely used to “criticize” the dire predictions of Mann et al (Al Gore’s hockey stick) is understandable.
And here you warmists were sure that guys like me were uneducated hicks.
Have you proved you’re not?
Dunno Joe, I’m stupid enough to believe that people can make a living as motor sports journalists.
I’ll stack up my grad creds and professional certs against yours if you like. Better yet, I’ll remind you that being a journalist requires no education, no credential, and that the highest award on this side of the pond is named after a guy who never went to college.
People who know me in real life (including at least one that is our mutual friend) might describe me as misguided, but never under-educated.
Where do you get your info? This contradicts everything I’ve read in respected publications. I can’t believe there’s people who are ignorant enough to actually deny scientific facts.
“I support 100% the efforts to make F1 the very peak of motorsport but it has to have some emotional joy and sounds of the sport are like beauty in a woman or aroma in a rose.”
If you got no “emotional joy” out of the racing in Bahrain, despite the sound, then I feel sorry for you.
F1 needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the correct centrury.
Well said Richard. The climate has always ‘changed’ and will continue to ‘change’ regardless of Man’s inputs.
There is something called the ‘Sun’…and it’s outside of Man’s control. The Sun has it’s own “Solar Cycle” which has far more impact on Earth’s weather systems and weather patterns than a little bit of CO2 (which has spurious science behind it at best).
Oh…and what about the Magnetosphere…or Solar Winds…or Lunar Cycles…all things interconnected that have an impact on our weather.
The amount of polluting gases from natural forest fires and volcanic eruptions far exceeds that of all the vehicle exhaust gases on the planet (but the eco-mentalists don’t like to deal with inconvenient truth’s!!!)
Anyway…Over a decade ago I thought we were all going to die from radiation because the Ozone layer had a big hole in it….funny how that all went quiet????…oops, it went quiet because the climate “scientists” from the IPCC didn’t understand that the nature of the Ozone layer and all their “models” were proved to be incorrect in the end – the Ozone layer is no longer a problem.
30 years back, it was said to be fact that where I live in Southern England, we would be living in conditions like Bahrain, with desert taking over from farm land and woods and moors by now….hasn’t happened as yet, and somehow all the experts have conveniently forgotten about it………..
Watching F1 go en pointe to prance about like it is leading the way technologically is bemusing. Engineers at the real car makers are already well along in developing hybrid and other fuel saving systems. No need for the butterfly boys to flit about at the head of the parade. When the energy savings of hybrid or alternate fuel cars are assessed it is common practice to look at the total energy use, and in this sense the drag of downforce and open wheel cars does make it hard to suppress a smile. Maybe even a bit fewer laps on Sunday would save at the pump? All those cerebral strategems would still get to play out, delighting the anoraks in their dozens!
Sorry about the sarc, Joe. I really want to watch racing, even though I’ve been driving a super efficient Civic for almost fifteen years now. Having worked for Big Oil and also having been convinced about the whole global warming bother for decades, I don’t require instruction from the tv or even from Niki Lauda.
I want to read one of his pieces on truck racing.
Excellent article. Thanks for sharing this Joe. I have a son who works for Red Bull and daughter who works as an environmental consultant. The ethical divide has been narrowed.
Barbara Ward
Motor racing needs to keep up with what is going on in the rest of the world to remain relevant.
For me F1 and Le-Mans type sports cars have always been about new technology and I think the current regulations are a very positive step in ensuring there future. I can’t say the same for the V8 super cars or the Indy cars in America, I think they are out of the game but they don’t know it.
NASCAR will probably last a bit longer because of huge local support but still it needs to change eventually to survive.
The level of technology we have at our disposal is amazing and the rate we are developing new technology is breathtaking. Petrol hybrids are just the beginning. In the future we will be able to do more with less and the future is here now.
Hydrogen Electric power is not that far away and solar cars will possible in the future. Who knows even a hybrid steam electric may be possible one day. Don’t discount the ability for new technology to revive old technology.
I think moving away from exclusively fossil fuel powered cars is the best move F1 and the Automobile Club de l’Ouest have made in many years. Motor racing needs to move into the 21st Century. Formula1 to keeps it’s title needs to be at the forefront.
Read the first line and stopped. I call shenanigans…
JOE!! “Saving the Planet” = good idea. Buying this hogwash, which flies in the face of the best evidence (almost 18 years of no “catastrophic” warming, if any warming at all?!?!) is a BAD IDEA.
Can you write in a form that is understandable?
Thanks. Excellent article. I have a son who works for Red Bull and daughter who works as an environmental consultant. The ethical divide has been narrowed.
Barbara Ward
Any F1 fan who dismisses the potential of F1 to contribute to solving the problems of climate change and energy security (for you climate change deniers) is dissing the sport you claim to love. OEMs (not just carmakers but fuel and tire companies as well) get involved and stay involved in F1 to develop new technology and train engineers by exposing both to the most demanding testing and problem-solving environment available. Those who have worked in the sport have seen this since the first turbo era, and I would venture that with the new regulations it’s as true in 2014 as it’s ever been.
And that would be why Pirelli are commissioned to make tyres for F1 that last maybe as long as 50 miles?? That sure is a technological leap. Not sure it is a leap forwards though. Last time I looked my tyres on my 4×4 were on 25,000 miles use and have maybe 5,000 miles life in them. If Pirelli are solving longevity problems in tyres, with F1, maybe they should ask Bridgestone how they made my tyres?
F1 needed to go in this direction for the sake of it’s image – that is undeniable whether you happen to ‘believe’ in human induced climate change or not.
What I hope is that F1 becomes more relevant by not just sticking to hybrid technology. Batteries are heavy, and more weight equals less efficiency (as I believe Adrian Newey said recently). Batteries also contain lots of nasty chemicals and materials that seriously mess up the environment when they are dug up out of the ground and refined. Hybrid systems are better than just burning fuel without thinking about it, but they are not green – they are just marketable.
That’s not to say batteries/hybrid systems shouldn’t be used; they should, but only if there are no better alternatives. These alternatives do exist, but it seems as if the Formula One collective finds it difficult to innovate and market itself except within very clearly defined boundaries.
I understand they have to have sporting rules and regulations, and that the teams struggle to agree on anything, but true innovation, true relevance and much more “greenness” could be approached from many other angles if there was the willingness to do so and to really market the positive benefits.
You are correct batteries are heavy, full of bad chemicals and have short lives, but F1 is the very kind of extreme usage that pushes innovative technology and refinement. So lets push some of our finest and most talented to do better for the benefit of us all! The refine in weeks what takes industry elsewhere months and years.
what an article! Personaly I am pleased with the new changes, for they brought along a good deal of grid changes too. who would have thought Force India could breathe on the necks of the ‘biggies’?
And this also shows who are the drivers and who are the racers.
Spot on.
I hope this article is widely picked up and we can laugh in future about the idiocy of things like burning fuel in the exhaust pipes just to blow the diffuser.
By the way, even if climate change were not man-made it’s still happening. Do you propose that we do nothing to ameliorate the situation simply because “it’s not my fault”? If so, enjoy your complacency while the rest of us roll up our sleeves (and unashamedly make some money along the way).
I feel that the word ‘hybrid’ has been under-used in helping to explain F1 2014-style….
Absolutely
This could be because many people equate the word “hybrid” (as it relates to automobiles) with “Prius”? Only because Toyota has done such an all encompassing job with marketing, from which the FIA, FOM, and the teams could learn. Joe, I don’t know if my impression is right, but do you get the feeling that this season kind of began “rudderless?” Almost as if the powers that be were caught unaware: “You mean it’s March already? The season has begun?” I sense that BE has been more distracted by the affairs in Munich much more than he’s willing to admit, while Jean Todt, never a friend to the press, has been wringing his hands, wondering what to do if BE is suddenly out, depriving the FIA of it’s cash cow. Hence the lack of a coherent “message” to launch the current season?
All the disparate arguments currently swilling round F1 condensed into one solid, sound and compelling article.
Even if one dismisses the concept of climate change (which would be lovely but get real), surely everyone should not dismiss the fact that fossil fuels are running out and are largely located in poltically sensitive regions. So why should we not try to move to different non-oil technologies anyway?
By coincidence my neighbour’s daughter was in Shanghai yesterday and sent me several pics showing the blue/brown air colour, but it was not nearly as bad as I expected.
In general it seems plain common sense to create less pollution if possible at reasonable cost, whatever your views on global warming.
Whilst the FIA online news-feed (as separate from it’s Press release feed) is mainly rally biased, it does this week, contain a snippet of interest: In highlighting the 50th anniversary of the first GP at Brands Hatch, it mentions the Mansell piloted Williams FW11 and that “only 195 Litres” of fuel were allowed in 1986. Todays allowance of 100kg is about 120-130 Litres I believe depending on the mix and the temperature. But I recall Mansell saying it was more rocket fuel than petrol, whereas on JA’s site there is a Ferrari demo of running an F1 car on F1 fuels and then on pump fuel showing, according to Alonso that there was very little difference. So have the fuels become more friendly?
We are surely on the right ethical road with the changes so far, but why don’t we have a standard fuel supplied to all teams, by one supplier?
You should be here today.
“why don’t we have a standard fuel supplied to all teams, by one supplier?”
A good question perhaps, but: the fuel companies learn a great deal from an extremely competitive racing environment, and are still a fairly sizeable source of funding for some teams. At the present time I believe we the consumers are ultimately benefitting from the fuel technology that these companies are using into the sport.
There may come a time in the not too distant future when battery storage is very much more efficient, and then hydrocarbons become less important and a single supplier could perhaps be an option.
Back in the 195 Litre era the fuel was mostly toluene. Interestingly, today’s fuel spec does not give a maximum Octane rating, unlike the 2013 fuel, although it does have very limiting chemistry.
Well well well, i hope this does not degenerate into a tussle between global warming believers vs deniers.
Saying F1 has shifted to V6Ts for saving fuel and the planets is a little hard to comprehend. Anyway, i always consider V6Ts as ground work for future car engine development, one which will used everyday and in staggeringly large numbers. That will save a lot compared to 22 F1 cars running for 19 or so weekends.
F1 will save much more fuel by reducing air travel, planning the calender so that you cover minimum possible air miles. Will save a lot of money too.
Entertainments are wasteful, some more some less, but wasteful anyway.
It will not.
Joe — here it the argument: 1) There is always “climate change.” Your fair little island there has been covered in ice completely as late as 14,000 years ago, for instance. 2) Since that last ice age, with fits and starts (Little Ice Age, Medieval Warming, etc) we have been on a warming trend. 3) The alarmists say that we are on the verge of a “catastrophic” warmup that can only be addressed by the most draconian solutions — ie, kill motorsports. 4) The problem of course is that we haven’t seen that “catastrophic” thing happen in spite of 20+ years of predictions. In fact, “warming” and “sea level rise” have gone on about as they have. 5) Worse yet, NONE of the models from 1998 or soon after have proven to be remotely accurate.
FACT CHECK — the 1930’s here in the USA was warmer than current temps. FACT CHECK — the best stats, HADCRUT, say we haven’t had any warming for almost 18 years. FACT CHECK — people who are motor sports journalists probably are easily lead astray once they are out of their area of expertise.
Most of the world’s serious scientists agree that global warming is real and that the activities of mankind are having an effect on the Earth’s climate. This does not mean that we are all going to be fried in our beds overnight and one needs some perspective to decide what is the best course of action for mankind in these circumstances. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body established by the United Nations in 1988, the global surface temperature of the Earth increased during the 20th century by somewhere between 0.18-deg C and 0.74-deg C. This is not a great deal. The same panel has estimated that in the course of the 21st century this rise in temperature will continue, with an increase somewhere between 1.1-deg C and 6.4-deg C. This is a pretty vague assessment, but nonetheless must be regarded as serious. What is important is to make the point that the major causes of this are: power stations, automobiles and agriculture. According to a report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO) in 2006, the livestock sector actually generates more greenhouse gas emissions than human transportation, so if the world were fair and logical, environmental campaigners would be picketing coalmines and power stations, and blockading cows in their fields rather than picking on the automobile. It may sound odd to argue that global warming is the world’s biggest problem, but what is clear is that either way the world needs to find new sources of sustainable energy if it is to maintain the current way of living. In the interim the best course of action is to try to promote better efficiency so that the existing oil lasts as long as possible. And this is what F1 is now doing.
The world’s biggest problem is actually over population. It’s being flagged by many people now, there is a birth explosion going on, and it needs controlling. The Vatican could help by supporting contraception, so could many African countries. There’s no point producing more and more humans, so that they can starve to death. And, if the human race doesn’t do something to control things, then Nature will. Either disease like Flu, or even War, will come along and cause massive loss of life. History repeating itself.
So we should ignore other problems?
Less people = less power / heat /food requirements/ less cows,sheep,chickens etc etc…that in turn reduces the other problems. It’s all about getting to the crux of the problem. We recycle huge amounts of cardboard for instance, now imagine if we used less cardboard packaging instead? Less packaging would mean less recycling yes? But, and it’s a big but, the Recycling Industry is now a major player, and governments earn big taxes from it and from us. So where is their incentive to reduce cardboard use at source? Now look around at everyday items that you buy in shops, and see if you can’t work out how you could sell those items using 50% less cardboard ( at least and probably more than 50% ). Looking at every problem in life should always start with going to the beginning of the problem, not trying to sort out where the end of the problem is.
Over population or scarcity of resources. Off course more people cause more pollution and use more resources. I really do not see the any fundamental difference it makes for wanting to pursue efficiency of use of what we have Damian, because both are interconnected.
Unless you want to promote forcefully cutting down on population, we really do not have a choice than to try and do more using less and producing less waste.
birth explosion ?
happy to say that is something that is virtually past , try reading the statistics for the number of childen born worldwide
most of the population growth is due to greater life expectancy
Tell me why this analyse is wrong, it seems sound on the surface.
What’s the point of singeling out the Vatican, mate? If You care to do a research on that matter You will find out that moslem and jewish women have more children on average than christian have. And there is no connection for moslems and jews with the vatican, wouldn’t you agree?
That’s true, but I was only relating the matter to knowledge based information that I grew up with in the former religion that I was a part of. However, you are correct to say that all religions should promote a degree of contraception in their believers, so that populations around the world, can attain growth targets that fit in with available resources.
Please provide evidence to back up your assertions. This evidence should be from impartial sources without their own agendas and there should be multiple sources for each assertion so we can ensure you’re not cherry picking your facts.
Otherwise, you’re just another random person on the internet who’s all mouth and no trousers.
It’s amazing people still stick their heads in the sand when people start to use the term ‘global warming.’ If you don’t want to believe the facts then you have to at least face the undeniable truth that we’re burning through a *finite* resource with ever an ever increasing price of extraction.
The halcyon days are gone. Let’s champion the brightest solutions and the efficient because that’s the future and the only way F1 will survive.
I for one have watched since the late eighties when I was around ten years old and my feelings are close to Jenson Button’s on the current state of racing: it doesn’t matter what’s being driven, it’s how it’s being driven that matters. And so far I’m having a lot of fun watching the how and learning about the what.
Andy — well, I think that the weight of evidence is on the side of the skeptics, and it is the warmists who are sticking their head in the sand. And I thought that Peak Oil was pronounced in the 1950’s… 60’s… 70’… pretty much every decade? But you are correct, the sport should remain relevant. And I’m wondering why no one is racing on natural gas, which is obviously the next fuel for transportation.
geek I think there has been LPG cars in WEC and in BTCC so far and proven to be competitive, its even powering our buses. The evidence isn’t on the side of the skeptics though as Joe points out there was never going to be a catastrophic rise in temperature frying us in our sleep its an incremental thing and even a few degrees here and there can have knock on effects. Its also wrong to label it as global warming it should be climate change, it is happening the only factor to consider is how much is our activities increasing the change, just as warming will cause problems in some parts of the world cooling will cause problems in others. Everything we do will have some impact on something else in the world. A good example is when all flights were grounded after the 11th September attacks there was a noticeable increase in temperature of a couple of degrees due to the vapour trials no longer reflecting sun back. This evened out once planes were flying again. We are technically in an ice age and coming out of it (in geological terms). So to deny that there is any change going on is ludicrous. there is however guilt on both sides of sensationalising, misinterpreting and flat out denying things which they feel is inconvenient. Part of the issue is that weather systems and effects are still 50% science and 50% witchcraft as its one of the most complex systems ever. Regardless of all of that though is the fact we need to be more efficient with our fuel use and clean up our air and water.
My wife is an Archaeologist, and she says past history shows that we are actually headed for a new Ice Age, and have been headed that way for some 600-700 years. She says it probably won’t happen for 100,000 years or so, so I think we are relatively safe from global catastrophy for the time being!
That is what I’m hearing as well. We have had stalled global temps for almost 18 years, which flies in the face of a prolonged warmup since the Little Ice Age, and the last glacial period before it. Archaeologists, along with geologists, know the record of the earth’s temps better than most, but are almost completely shut out of this conversation. Which is a pity — with $1 billion spent on “global warming” world-wide EVERY DAY, they might be able to employ more of those geology and archaeology grads…
F1 cars fueled by compressed natural gas? The FIA would have to revoke Maldonado’s super license before that could ever be considered.
The weight of evidence is only on the side of the skeptics if you completely misread it and wilfully misrepresent things.
For example, how could peak oil be pronounced in the 1950s or 1960s if M. King Huppert claimed that it wouldn’t actually peak until some time between 1965 and 1971? He didn’t come up with the theory until 1956.
Stop making things up. It’s embarrassing.
Sorry, you’ve stumbled upon a student of history here, who keeps such tidbits around to pester people like you. Folks thought we were gonna be out of oil pretty much since we started using the stuff, only to be thwarted by those rich greedy evil oil barons who keep finding more. And of course, by fracking, which leaves the USA as being the Saudi Arabia of natural gas.
So keep up on your science and your scientific history. BTW, you do know that the Al Gore / Michael Mann thing is never brought up in polite circles in academia now, right? Was discredited over a decade ago. Please, try to keep up.
Peak oil has been around since the oil industry began. There has only ever been 30yrs ” Known ” supply left, according to the Oil guys. What they never say is that there is thought to be more than 1000yrs supply left.
Climates change all the time, always have always will. Human Climate Change is a very convenient way for politicians to frighten people into paying more taxes…..
Damian >>What they never say is that there is thought to be more than 1000yrs supply left.<<
The key word here is "thought", NOT KNOWN, a very, very, big difference, you are changing your thoughts and opinions and those of others you read, into facts.
What will you do if that "thought" is wrong, if the only accessible supplies are what is known, about 30 years or so? I could "think" we "might" get time machines. I am not willing to build my future on that hope because so far some old version of me has not showed up in a DeLoren! So we have to stick to the known facts and evidence and make the best decisions based upon them.
However I am willing to "believe" that F1 using Hybrids might lead to some innovations that will improve battery performance, recycle the materials to reuse them from race to race, extract more power from engines per unit of fuel used etc. That is a belief, but one that is founded on reasonable evidence of past performance of F1 teams. Much more reasonable evidence of future trends than 1000 years of unlimited fossil fuels and no impact from unlimited pollution!
Adam, let’s put it this way, an oil company exec told me back in 1975, that the industry was working on North Sea oil, not because it was a valuable area, but because it would invent and prove new tech needed to undertake drilling in places like the Antarctic where they knew there were reserves for many more than 30 years! And that the 30 yr rule was so that oil could keep value up and keep the buyer paying over the odds. Good for profits! The oil companies also invest all the time in new power sources, and tech. Where I live the oil industry has invented a drilling method that is now being used internationally and that enables wells to operate where previously it was not economical. Methane Hydrate is a relatively, but not very new, prospect. That alone could provide fossil fuels for a thousand years. Coal in the UK is abundant, but it is still cheaper to use someone else’s coal and save ours. After the 1984 Miner’s Strike, I read that the NCB had an estimate of 800 years of coal availability in our mines. And no much has been dug out since then.
I have a background in Minerals, and trust me Adam, big companies know exactly what they need 50-100 years ahead in Minerals, and where they can get it from, as well as how much they will be able to charge us for it. It’s also the case that pretty much every armed conflict in the world, can be traced to mineral holding, and the wealth that can be had from it. Diamonds are not as rare as you might think, however their supply is and has been, strictly controlled by 3 companies for a century. Supply vs Demand = Big Profit!
Jesus Christ, Joe!
Surely he paragraphed the thing? What did you do it?
It’s unreasonable to expect anyone to try to wade through a vast block of solid text like that.
Each time I look at it my brain jumps out of gear and I recoil from it in horror.
So, you are telling me that you cannot read an article without paragraph breaks?
DO NOT try walking and chewing gum at the same time.
[For the benefit of doubt, this is called humour – not a personal slur].
I disagree with the article. The fuel used for the race cars is insignificant compared to the fuel consumption of the circus’ logistical operations. even the fuel used by fans to attend races is way bigger than what the race cars use. I agree with Luca that F1 races need to be flat out sprints, where drivers must use aggressiveness and complex race craft to overtake opponents. yes we had that in Bahrain, but there have been countless amazingly exciting races in each era as well. I’d rather keep the visceral appeal of an intense audio visual experience over fuel saving games anyday.
Lots of people completely missing the point I think. It’s not about global warming. In the grand scheme of things F1 makes no difference to this whatever side of the fence you’re on. Not to mention it’s an issue that some people get very silly about.
The fact is that in order to be relevant to the majority of car manufacturers, F1 had to change. Without it I fear we’d be down to a couple of engine suppliers within a fairly short amount of time.
Denial of climate change is easy. It allows one to maintain the status quo. Most of the readers of Joe’s blog have lived through the best time there has or will ever be and they will be dead before the true horror of what we are doing becomes overwhelming. To sit in the comfort of denial is spitting on future generations. Unfortunately selfishness is a human trait.
Just curious Joe, when do you expect the next (major) engine rule change ?
Do you think they want to go to the 4 cylinder engines, the FIA wanted to introduce in 2013 at first, in the forseeable future ? Also with cost reduction in mind.
These hybrid engines in racecars and roadcars are still in their infancy, and with F1 contributing in its development, progress will go fast as years go by.
So how long will these current engines still be relevant?
Nice question ain’t it ? 🙂
Not for years
it was stated in today’s conference in china to be 7 years
It should have been 4 cylinders. Renault wanted them. Ferrari stopped them.
Should have been 5 litre V8-V10-V12-V16 etc etc…..no substitute for cc’s as the Yanks always said.
Excellent article, thanks for reproducing it Joe. The comments are are even more depressing than the regular Luddites complaining about the noise.
I feel exactly the same way.
Just differences of opinion…..that’s all.
It was mentioned in the article but global warming isn’t relevant to why this new engine formula is a good thing. Using less fuel means that the finite stocks of oil will last longer and we will have to spend less money to go further. Getting more from less is a good thing and everyone in F1 should be shouting from the rooftops about it.
I have to say I think Climate Change element in this argument is a bit of a red herring – the IPCC has pretty much said we need to learn to live with the consequences (regardless of whether it is man-made or not) of more severe weather events (hotter, colder, windier, wetter etc). Speaking as a former environmental scientist, I also think that Solar activity plays more of a part than most of the science considers.
More important than climate change (as a couple of people have mentioned) is tackling the availability of Hydrocarbon resources longer term.
Think of the earth as a big battery – it was fully charged up by the sun millions of years ago. We plugged into it a little more than 100 years ago and have used up most of that charge. When it is gone it is gone. There’s no re-charge available.
We’re getting slightly better at eking out a bit more from what we have left – (which gives capacity for bigger populations people have mentioned) but it is ultimately going to go flat and then we’ll have to learn to live on trickle charge. Hopefully this new direction for F1 is going to contribute to the development that allows us to do that.
I find it astounding that teams have had a rule imposed that sees a 35% reduction in fuel – yet we haven’t seen anything like a 35% reduction in lap time. That’s a really positive story and I’m really surprised that the teams, sponsors, engineers, promoter and FIA aren’t jumping up and down shouting about it.
If someone offered me a road car tomorrow that was 35% more efficient, went just as far on a tank/charge (but was not 35% more expensive), It’d certainly be on my shopping list and I don’t think I’d give a stuff what it sounded like.
No one is shouting about it because for the layman, its not relevant. They just want to be entertained. You start speaking of MGU-H and fuel flows and they look at you like you have three heads. Its just racing to them. For us, a minority of F1 educated, connoisseurs and devote followers, the topic is larger than life and of utmost importance. But in fact its boring and passe for the average joe. I do agree with you in your comment, but this is the reality on the streets.
Bread and circuses are fine, but someone needs to think about the world in the longer term.
Simple calculation: 22 cars, 19 races, 100 kg per race – it is 41 800 kg of fuel. With all testing, practices and qualifications it could be around 100 000 kg per season.
Full tank of the Airbus A3800, which is one of most efficient airplanes with 3,1 l per 100 passenger kilometres, is 223 000 kg (310 000 litres).
How many CO2 we have to produce for one season making artificial snow for all ski races?
Later…
Tout est bien. I found the original. 🙂
For anyone else who would like to read it without damaging their grey cells, it’s here:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/column-fuel-careful-f1-less-guilty-pleasure
Thanks for putting us all on to it, Joe. I appreciate it.
Have a great Easter and a great race.
All the best,
Douglas.
PS. I love your blog: follow it daily. You always see Formula One in the right perspective. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.
D.
Thank you Sir Joe for posting the article, looking forward to seeing Lewis Hamilton and co. being showered with copious amounts of dandelion tea;-)
ps keep up the great work
Nice article.. I just wish he had not use the Prius vs F1 car example. I get the point he is making but most people drive cars that are that fuel efficient.
Haven’t time to read all of the well-articulated comments; my apologies if I’m just echoing someone else. My take: Professional racing is an activity that has to be promoted to survive. Ergo, it lives on public relations (PR); effective PR that generates good will. If I’m to believe that the FIA has any shrewdness, and wants to perpetuate the sport, then I’ll believe that one of their major goals has been to keep F1’s image favorable in the general public eye. I’d say the new rules take the next needed step after the successful remedying of the former lethality of the sport. In praising JYS’ tireless safety campaigning, Chris Amon wrote that F1 might not otherwise have survived the public’s ever-decreasing tolerance of entertainment that kills. Now we’re dealing with another form of decreasing tolerance. One can argue and shout that some of the widely held “environmental” beliefs of today aren’t rational. But, neither were those of the American Prohibitionists of 1920’s, and yet they shackled the USA for 13 years. Racing is a tempting target for busybodies; some “ban racing” articles were published after Dan Wheldon’s death. Environmentally-based anti-racing demagoguery could be spawned in a coffee house and run up a flagpole by a silver-tongued political opportunist. Much as I miss the V-12-10-8 shriek, my vote for the new rules is favorable because they go to fortification against attack on environmental grounds. Trouble is, very few forms of racing can follow suit, leaving racing in general still vulnerable to attack.
Lets just forget the environmental argument for a half a second, please, for the love of…*cough*.
Formula 1 is about technology. PERIOD. They are hands down the most advanced machines designed to get from point A to point B created outside of Gov’t (and now some private) spacecraft and military gear, designed and built on a fraction of those budgets.
F1 cars are designed for a singular purpose, and as such they should represent the very pinnacle of the industry. V8 engines (aside from the absurd RPM levels) have been around, and used, for how many years now? How would keeping that formula represent the pinnacle of anything? All the whining about the sound, or the given reasons to push the NEW hybrid TECHNOLOGY (going back to my premise) forgets the underlying reason for this entire sport to exist – advancing the methods we use to transport ourselves and goods.
Believe what you want about climate change (yes, the climate is changing, you cannot deny this, and we shouldn’t resist the urge to minimize our impact on this no matter what the science actually says, it’s called stewardship and we have a responsibility to have a conscience in the matter). But don’t you dare drag your knuckles and the rest of us back because you have a problem with the changes (speaking to the outright deniers and V8-ists).
Because, seriously, if the rest of us capitulated to that mindset we’d still be watching the old streamliners with slant 6 carb’d engines and what could charitably be described as wishbone suspensions. There were plenty of people over the years who bemoaned anything new (“This internet thing is hooey, I will never use email, the postal service does just fine”). If you want to watch loud V8 cars go ’round, there are plenty of options for you (literally every weekend 9 months of the year in the US, you can’t miss it if you turn on the TV). These hybrid developments NEED to happen for the good of the entire industry (and probably the world, deniers or no). I want to feel like I’m watching teams compete to develop actual new technology for the best results and wins, instead of minor tweeks to skirt the rules. I want to believe it’s not just some BS advertising dumped onto my screen, but a real challenge amongst engineers finally able to unleash their intelligence and education on something that thrills and excites. This is what F1 is supposed to be.
But, hey, if you don’t believe in these things, stop watching. Throw your cell phone, computers, flat screens, composite golf cubs, internets and what have you into the river and get back to walking wherever you go, because that’s essentially what you’re supporting. Let the rest of us look to the future and enjoy the journey.
Joe, I have tremendous respect for your knowledge and experience. I have enjoyed your posts for several years. However, John Leicester is so far off the mark it verges on being offensive to long-term fans of the sport. First, the suggestion that a 90-minute F1 race (or a season of them) has anything more than a de minimis impact on the environment is absurd, especially with Chinese coal-fired plants belching out more toxic smoke in a day than an entire year of races. F1 pats itself on the back for a “green” engine and then runs off to race in Shanghai, where the air is so thick with coal dust you can feel it in your throat and see it on your clothes.
Second, the whole concept of road-relevance hasn’t been anything more than a facile ploy to maintain the interest of manufacturers, who have the kind of cash that is necessary to keep the top tier of the F1 circus rich. No one has ever watched an F1 race to see their own road car engine. People mostly want the opposite of what road cars deliver: spectacle, daring, bravado, speed and innovation. Road relevance is for touring cars. When the powers that be tell me to love a V6 turbo I usually note that person has a vested interest in seeing F1 thrive and therefore, that person must “get on board” with the new show.
The writer reveals his bias in this statement: “Ultimately, however, what makes F1 watchable – or not – isn’t noise but the quality and closeness of the racing.” That may be true for Mr. Leicester, but not necessarily others. The vigorous debate over “noise” wouldn’t exist if it didn’t matter to the “punters”.
I am well aware that neither the FIA, FOTA, or the media care about what interests the spectators who buy the tickets, cable TV fees, and merchandise. That’s fine, and I know where the door is. But the patronizing tone of “this is what’s good for you and you’ll like it” really has gone far enough. No one ever watched an F1 race to feel better about himself morally. Let’s stop using morality (disguised as environmental consciousness) as a reason for neutering the sport.
Fine. Don’t read it.
A little late for that advice but I’ll know better next time.
Well said SB. Mr Leicester’s article was painful to read…just a load of socialist eco-waffle sprinkled with irrelevant and dubious references to F1.
Shame that Joe seems to think Me Leicester’s article is the best thing since sliced bread – but everyone to their own I guess.
Yawn.
If there was one positive to take from so many of the crackpot denial comments, it was that nobody had trundled out the (meaningless) “socialism” argument.
Congratulations, you have successfully confirmed just how limited your critical thinking abilities are.
You don’t think any lessons learned from research, development and practical knowledge gained on these powerplants are going to be in some way applicable to roadcars, Really? Road car engine technology is stagnant and refuses input? Road car engines are constantly evolving why would a consumer division not be a benefactor from the F1 arms race and developement pace?
You wait and see the cross promotion between a winning Mercedes F1 team and their road cars. You don’t think AMG is going to want an association with Silver Arrows winning technology – Benz is finally a company smart enough to cash in on the marketing bonanza a winning team offers (partially because they have an extensive mid to upper range consumer product instead of just being an esoteric F1 team)
A winning Mercedes team may be the biggest / broadest cross promotion marketing opportunity in F1 history!
Audi, Porsche, Toyota are developing their tech in WEC. Citroen, Volkswagen in WRC. Ferrari, Renault, Mercedes in F1. Each manufacturer chooses to compete in the series they feel they have the best shot at success. But when you look at the sales numbers of auto manufacturers, guess what the order is?
1- Volkswagen (and they have Audi and Porsche)
2- Toyota
3- Daimler (Mercedes)
4- GM
5- Ford
6- Fiat (Ferrari only $3.2B of the $116B total)
7- BMW
So do you think that Volkswagen has any desire to be in F1 for any reason when ALREADY they are winning the corporate game against anyone involved in F1? If anything, it just demonstrates that WEC has much higher marketing power if you want to sell road cars. In fact Ferrari wants to REDUCE the number of cars it makes to maintain exclusivity (how does that sit on the radar of the global car market and average consumers?)
Back in the 50s-70’s there were not many specialized racing series. So back then, F1 was directly responsible for development of road relevant technology. But in our modern world, car manufacturers have become highly specialized and evolved to the point that F1 is no longer relevant to them. (Unless all manufacturers decide to start mass producing open cockpit single seat cars with giant aerofoils attached to them and no ABS for everyday driving! Ha.)
Simply put, F1 is just racing entertainment, and I love it because of my DNA, not because someone told me to watch it. If it stays simple and true to creating an exciting and visceral experience for the average person, then the sponsors, TV viewership, and money will follow. Unchecked hypercapitalistic attempts at growth just for growths sake results in dilution (just like the problem Ferrari is correcting now). The masses will buy the cars, tyres, fuel filters, oils of those manufacturers involved in F1 because they want the ASSOCIATION to a winning brand, not because its the same exact power unit under the hood of their front wheel drive hatchback.
Whatever side of the argument you agree with,it still doesn’t change the fact that modern F1 cars must lead the way in developing cleaner and more efficient road car technology, for the future. I hate to admit it ,but I think they have surpassed my expectations this year. The racing is closer and more exciting then I’ve seen in a long time..Now, if they could just find a simple and cheap way to turn up the volume, life would be perfect!
F1 needs to be relevant. It gave us paddle gear changers on road cars, yes?
Whether you agree with the man-made climate change argument or not, it’s common sense that getting 60mpg is better than 40mpg. As your petrol consumption goes down, so does the hole that’s burnt in your wallet. If the technology in these cars gives us more fuel efficient cars in future, that can only be a good thing; for my bank balance if nothing else!
Engine noise and global warming? Will the number of idiots commenting reach critical mass?
Good article BTW.
Read that article first off going thru my morning paper eating my toast, before getting to the real matters of the moment with Joe’s blog.
I’ll come back when we have racing discussions here, but I have never read so many slanted angry and insulting arguments (pro and con). To quote Spiro Agnew, excessive nattering nabobs of negativism on both sides of the topic
The only sane answer to “saving the planet” is to ban all recreational motor sports of any kind.
Find another passion Joe, yours/ours has a limited life span.
Thank you for sharing this. Great article.
Keep up the great work Joe!
Magnus
Sent from my iPhone
Totally agree with the chess analogy. Ever watch a chess match? Not much physical action, but it’s riveting when one comprehends the entire process. Same with this past America’s Cup; one watches two boats sailing. It is the action and reaction of the people crewing that makes it spell binding.
Leaving the global stuff aside, we have half who just want to see and hear racing cars racing flat out, and half who love the new technology and are not fussed about the noise etc. What we actually need actually need is a the exact ingredients above, in the right proportions. I’m sure it will be coming soon, we’ve only had 3 races so far.
Personally, id like the cars a little more noisy, and without a fuel flow regulator, but I have no problem with a maximum fuel amount.
Are F1 cars green, no, and no matter how they market them, the r&d costs to these cars is not only massive, but will take years to make its way to the cars we drive, but that should not stop the drive to look at new technologies, however, they are racing cars and we must not forget that, or am I being a bit romantic in that!!!
Joe stands by his opinion strongly, which generates impressions of him being arrogant. I love this kind of people. I may disagree, in his case only occasionally, but I do love the debate. Opinion exchange at its best.
Great article, Joe. Thanks for posting it. I’ve wondered for years why the FIA hasn’t been more actively promoting the fact the F1 has been carbon neutral since 1997: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/56953
“This season’s switch to fantastically complex hybrid engines puts F1 back ahead of the technological curve.”
On a slight tangent – Which engines are more impressive and further ahead of the curve this year F1 or WEC?
When the olimpics were on China shut down the factories for the duration to stop the smog & Australia was hit with carbon tax so the factories shut down & went to China , Australians lost jobs to China & the smog was transferred .
Top gear had a fuel economy run with a Prius traveling flat out and a Porche sitting on its tail , the Porche used less fuel , just saying horses for courses .
If we really wanted to see technology moving forward we would see non stop development for the first year before the freeze because 3 month development is too much hit and miss , the engine manufacture winning is the richest & had the most time & resorses to throw at it .
Will we still be watching if Mercedes is one two every race this year ?
“Top gear had a fuel economy run with a Prius traveling flat out and a Porche sitting on its tail , the Porche used less fuel , just saying horses for courses .”
Er… it was a BMW. M3?
If ignorance is truly bliss, there are a lot of really happy people here.
I would have thought more fans of such a technical sport would believe in science. Disappointing……
That said, I think the article is spot on. Thanks for posting it Joe.
I know it’s fatuous but on 19 Sundays (ish) per year 500 odd million people stop driving their cars around this little planet and use a bit of electricity to watch F1 on the Telly ……. Actually, this is vastly influential on emitted gases (cars and human)……….. 🙂
If only one tenth of what was written is true then there’s no future for racing cars and private cars, airplanes and so on…
Btw the majority of scientists can be wrong especially when they speak outside their field of knowledge. And that’s very often the case in the global warning discussion. It has became since a decade more a question of faith than a question of science…
If you ask I’m a geologist and I’have never work for a mining or a petrol company but I don’t buy “les histoires à dormir debout des spécialistes auto-proclamés de l’effet de serre et de leurs amis les politiciens souvent proche du nucléaire”.
Even if you don’t believe in global warming, petrol engines are bad for the environment. The particulates alone, which for example creates smog, can result in people having troubling breathing. I know some people who live in Amsterdamn who hardly come out of their house because of this. It even gets people killed.
Even though the contribution of the Formula 1 is hardly measurable, that’s not the point. The real point in my opninion is the cumulative effect that is created from this. The technology used in F1 to create more efficient (and clean) engines can be used in road cars, so they become cleaner too. And for the general public (but probably not the die hard petrolheads) that watches F1, seeing that the F1 becomes greener, may well be influenced to choose a cleaner car for themselfs, when they need a new one. If millions of people all over the world choose to do so, that will have a major positive impact on the global environment.
Ah! Science ~ the new Religion!
Scientists ~ the new Priesthood!
This is all fine and well but the result of it all is the most boring season ever. One team dominating every race so far. Make no mistake, 2014 is even worse than 1988. One team being 2 secs faster than the rest. Horrible. I agree that Mercedes fully deserves the credit for their fine work. However spectators will turn away in spades as the season progresses. Unless the fia does something to reign into Mercedes’s parade. A rule change or so. But it seems rather quite on that front.
I think Steve Matchett from NBCSN has said it best during the Bahrain race. His point was that F1 should stop pretending that it is a “green” product because it is not. If F1 wants to be a green sport, stop racing all together, that is the greenest solution.
I recall hearing that if you add up all the fuel used in all cars from all races in a year (e.g. 2013), that would still be less than one transatlantic flight between NY and UK. That makes me feel green about F1.
First, I enjoy your blog, so keep going. About the “green” aspect of batteries, there is no such thing. The making and disposal of these is (and will be) a real problem. They are dirty and pollute, so you are trading one for the other.
I would also like to say that what the FIA should have done (about the new engine regs) is say there are a maximum of X cylinders (8?), and you can have any configuration you want (X, Y, H, straight, Z) and let creativity and engineering grow. Indianapolis used to be great when different cars etc. used to race. Now it is a kit car with slightly different engines. The Smokey Yuniks, and others are gone.
Meanwhile back on planet earth, how did the 20million Chinese, 15million Americans, 12million Europeans and 5million Japanese make their decision when buying new cars last year?
Probably, they chose a body style that reflects their lifestyle, Cabrio, SUV, people carrier and then choose an engine size and ancillary equipment within their budget and only then might they consider if they will use a lot of fuel each year that might justify the increased costs of buying a turbo-Diesel for fuel economy, but this tends to be a European thing.
As they become increasingly affluent they will tend to buy bigger and less efficient vehicles that demonstrate their new status in life. Only when they become mega-rich can they afford the glow that must come from knowing that their hybrid 918 can do one very fast lap of the Ring; but not two.
Bean counters control what engineering actually goes into the cars we buy and the stuff currently being used in F1 will remain prohibitively expensive for many years to come – 10 years, that’s another half-billion vehicles.
All credit to Toyota for shifting 3million Prius since it’s inception, but it is not going to save the planet The worldwide desire for cheap cars is just too great.
Whatever my views about global warming ( I agree with Joe on this) – the fact that F1 is moving technology forward is fantastic. F1 was never about standing still – it was always about the technology and more power – but there have to be limits to that power if nothing else to stop the cars flying off the track.
An excellent article though and I am personally loving the new F1 – sound and all.
Well said, by this bloke.
I know that those who won’t be swayed can’t be swayed but for those who are interested in the science
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
is, imo, a fantastic well written for the lay-person (like myself) resource, that is of course if you’re not in the camp that insists they’re part of the “conspiracy”… [rolleyes].
Ugh, I’m gonna blame youtube! 😀
(fingers crossed!)
Last try!
+ 1