The news that Jarno Trulli has bought a Formula E entry has been mistaken for a good sign for the planned championship, but it does raise some interesting questions about the new electric series which kicks off in the autumn. Trulli has acquired the entry from Drayson Racing. The question that has not been asked, however, is why Drayson has given up on the project, after being the first team to sign up to the idea back in January 2013. Drayson has long been a pioneer of green technology racing and is extremely well-connected as a former British Minister for Science & Innovation. Logically, the only reason to give up one’s entry at this point is because one cannot afford to go ahead and if a man with such credentials cannot find the sponsorship to support such an effort one has to ask whether anyone else can. There are some who believe that with the wholly electric car is still a long way from being financially viable and the industry will continue to concentrate on hybrid machinery in the mid- to long- term. Thus F1 is actually better placed than Formula E when it comes to industry relevance.
- Comment
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
joeblogsf1 
That’s an interesting topic to dig into Joe. It indeed seems that not every team is able to find sponsorship for the first season that easily.
But I do believe there is a place (and it’s the right time) for a marketing tool like Formula E to promote electric vehicles.
Will you attend the first pre-season test day at Donington Park on July 3? It’s just ahead of the Silverstone GP.
All new formula, no history of results, brand new teams and staffing… but I think the main reason you’ll get a slow start to sponsorship is because everyone started selling probably about the same time! F1 sponsorships come up comparatively rarely. I could argue this is a time to coordinate sales to prevent treading on toes, but just thinking of how much, uh, fun, that is when just working on a magazine with twenty guys wanting to pitch the same companies, all for the inside cover and outside back… and these are obviously much more complicated deals. Headache city. Nonetheless differentiation will increase, hopefully the series will attract the attention it wants… catch 22 and chicken and egg scenarios will subside. It is a bit harsh to slam a lack of sponsorship, I think, unless there’s a stand out reason you can point to that is readily solvable.
Good observations on the whole but I have to pick up on this one:
“I could argue this is a time to coordinate sales to prevent treading on toes…”
That sounds like a cartel to me, so spreading the sponsorship wealth would be a tricky manoeuvre, legally.
Ten teams have entered for Formula E. We can guess that there are three or four companies where the marketing department was waiting for a racing series like Formula E to be invented. If the series inventors have done their homework, those sponsors will be highly committed and motivated that Formula E works as a spectacle.
That leaves six or seven teams looking for a major sponsor. I’ll definitely wander up to Donington Park on one of the test days to see what it is about.
Oops, I managed to delete my initial reply. But in short, I do not believe cartel formation is the inevitable tendency of sharing information, which will naturally happen to a certain extent, in forms of war stories, rumors of leads lost, and so on, over time. Given a while, people moving from job to job, you build up a kind of common knowledge within any close knit business. You can’t have absolute openness, but you can have rules to diminish possible chaos. Common exclusivity periods for bids, is a possible benefit, both to cool off risk of pure price competition, but also to give smaller teams moment to breathe and collect their presentations. It also obviously forces non short listed bidders to spend some time looking farther afield. I’d want a strong team centrally, turning out research, leads, on a level basis to teams. The scent of a deal can be all consuming, and cost painfully in wasted time. There’s a scale concern, also. Sponsorship sales can be shaped by the size of the sponsoring organizations, and be very hard to manage for small outfits. With a new series, maybe hiring heavyweight talent centrally, to be drawn upon, is not a outrageous idea. Tearing down lost sales into where there were showstopper arguments is something that I imagine ought to be of vital interest to all concerned. The common issue is that the series itself is looking for a model to do business. It is tricky to anonymize such reports, but with a bit of effort and a embargo on reports, I think you can feed back vital information to bring up overall efforts, without prejudicing anyone automatically. These are just very generalized ideas, and it is too easy to find in them potential for conflict and argument, but if you are faced with a tangible general difficulty, I don’t see the objections as insurmountable. As for cartel concerns, I don’t see how it is too hard to make communication transparent in the event of a dispute. Filing sealed bids, or keeping correspondence recorded for future inspection is not a burdensome idea. I’m not surprised the idea of a cartel was seen in what I said, but the incentive to avoid any appearance of such surely would ensure that the structure of any information sharing was carefully set out in plain sight. I was thinking of what temporary measures might assist in getting the series on a stable footing, not of creating a organization structure that risks a office being incentivized to perpetuate itself and grab political territory and commercial influence. I know by just writing this, if one has a pessimistic view of human nature, one might want to forget all about it. But if the will and intent can be simple and clear, I think there is fair reason to think what cab be done.
The whole buildup to the first Formula E season reminds me a lot of the buildup to the A1GP series. Lot’s of talk about how great it’s going to be and how it will complement F1 in its off season. Formula E even seems to do a good job at attracting former/failed F1 drivers. But the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. In the end only few people warmed up to the ‘Nations Cup’ idea of A1GP and the series has been scrapped after only a few seasons.
If people complain about the lack of noise from the current F1 cars, then Formula E will have a very hard time convincing the larger audience that it’s fun to watch. From what I’ve seen so far Formula E looks far from impressive on TV. No noise, short races and low top speed are probably not very good ingredients to get people interested.
The top speed is probably not an issue as Formula E has targetted city circuits – they should top out about 15% (25mph) slower than F1 cars do in Monaco.
I suspect that it might come down to how they use the lack of noise – if they’re crafty it might work in their favour for allowing music & PA commentary to create an atmosphere.
They also claim that the choice of urban tracks is in part because the cars are so quiet, removing the issue of strict noise pollution limits that would tend to limit cars with more conventional powertrains.
Good point, Jem.
Lack of noise can be overcame, and mean nothing to lessen the competitive nature of the espetáculo.
Travelling in Europe I saw yesterday a silent BMW cruising on the street – not a sporting model, even so quite impressive – instantly it reminded me of the Audis e-tron I saw in Interlagos last year, albeit rushing at formidable speed up Subida da Junção or entering Reta Oposta. Their exquisite low level of noise somehow only added to the feeling of velocity, making even other hybrid cars looking like wasting power and speed thru the usual strong noise.
Still, the sight (and no sound) I had of the saloon-like car on the street suggests to me highly possible that f-E can achieve success forming an attractive and competitive formula.
And still in my personal ‘hardcore’ and veteran fan view, I will be glad with the opening possibility of bringing back old tracks that nowadays are obliged to follow restrictions in its activities because of excessive noise; to watch a fast formula at Zandvoort again would be super cool.
I get the same impression of velocity- as you put it so eloquently- when watching the Youtube video’s of a single Audi e-tron testing at Monza. Just 1 car on track, little sound, but it DOES give some sensation. Not sure what yet, but there’s something in it..
If indeed trackside commentary can be done properly, finally we’d have a chance to actually follow a race from the sideline.
Drayson is still to be involved in the team with their wireless charging technologies I understand.
FE will, of course, struggle with range for the foreseeable future while battery technology improves. The performance is there or thereabouts but not groundbreaking as it too is ultimately limited by the battery technology as carrying enough energy to make the car fast for a long time isn’t possible yet. I don’t think people realise yet quite how bulky and heavy the battery is on a FE car… Certainly those that suggest swapping batteries rather than cars at a pitstop haven’t understood yet what a large and heavy assembly this is. This isn’t to suggest that the battery in the car is not good, its cutting edge.. Its just what’s possible with the technology available in 2014.
The Nissan ZEOD Garage 56 entry at Le Mans this year was a bit of a disaster in the race, but not as a result of its electric technologies, as it was some conventional oily bits that let them down. In fact it should be seen as a great success for the tech on there. They lapped the track on electric only power at a pace akin to an LMP2 car, and they reached their top speed target on the straight too.
I’m enormously interested in Formula E and I’ve always followed, and also been lucky enough to work in, Formula 1 too.. But what’s really caught my attention recently is LMP1 hybrids.. Now that should be the future of motorsport. Problem is finding the audience with the time and interest to follow a race for 6hrs, never mind 24! Unlike in F1, the technologies across the main competitors are all different. And with totally different technological concepts, there is still a great three way race. And next year, more people are coming to the party too!
FE is testing at Donington Park 3rd, 4th, 9th and 10th July. Its free to attend as a spectator, I hope as many people as possible get to see these cars and make their own judgment on them. I hope this series is a huge success and people see it as something new and exciting in its own right.
But yes Joe.. right now I agree, fossil fuel/electric hybrids are more road relevant in the short term.. FE is all about driving the technological developments to make full EV’s better in the long run.
its interesting that audi use the williams flywheel tech, which had packaging issues for f1, its only useful for hybrids and does nothing to develop battery tech.
will also be interesting to see what comes of that french company developing an electric road car using an aluminium/air battery. that would certainly sort out the problems formula e has.
I think that flywheel deal was done originally through Porsche. Not 100% in my memory, but VW AG passes development around its subsidiaries.. just had a peek around, and you can buy a 918 in Martini livery. Seems the connections are a little richer than I realized. Could be just a tribute to the 917, boy does that still look so good. Williams Hybrid Power has been acquired by GKN, since when nothing very newsworthy has come to my attention.
Is the Aluminum – air company called Phinergy? If so they are working with Alcoa, so should have the backing to go further. One if the reasons I had a little success in life I can attribute to Alcoa, for pushing their finance director into retirement, not early, but too early for him. Holy cow, I was barely twenty and had people like that to draw on… I look back and am flabbergasted how parochial I was despite vast ambition. Talent of that caliber fell like a apple on my head, figured I was worth teaching a thing or two.. my mind still boggles… anyhow, metal air batteries are worth a longer look in context : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal-air_battery
thanks, SteveC, for giving the tests dates at Donington; I’m travelling thru Europe and will try to stretch a leg up there to see it. Very curious about those cars.
As I have said before, another one make series although electric is not whats needed, there are already to many formula chasing sponsorship money. Drayson may well have sold their entry because of lack of budget but also, what interest is there for a team where you can’t even use the technology that they invested in? Can’t help but get the feeling that the FIA are forcing this through regardless.
Hybrids are a good solution for now until we can develop batteries that last longer and charge in minutes not hours! F1 is now well placed to capitalise on these new generation of power units. The onboard shots of the Audis and Porsche’s at Le Mans were interesting, you could really hear the energy harvesting under braking and the electric motor spinning up on acceleration.
As you have stated before Jo it’s a real shame all involved have not promoted and educated the viewing public just how amazing these power units are.
Charging any battery fast is just the scariest proposition. Think only you want a pretty big amount of energy out of a battery consistently for a good long while. Then think of forcing all that energy into the battery in a momentary time. Forget physics and equations, you can get a sense of the “difficulty” with imagination. How about shoving the energy of sunshine that lights your back garden through a summer’s day, into a large roller suitcase.. that might be within a order or two of the scale, off my uncalibrated head. Serious energy, tremendous current, not very big connectors. That’s roughly why gains in other engineering matter so much.
Joe, I understand your logic regarding Drayson, however at this point none of us really know their rationale for selling off their entry. They may have realized that they do not have the resources necessary to compete OR they may have made a nice profit from just selling their grid spots. Truth is we do not know.
In my opinion, if recognized journalists (such as you) would promote FE as much as F1, it would apply pressure on F1 to improve their product. Something that is much needed at this time.
Drayson is pushing his new venture with Wireless Charging, what he is developing with Qualcomm. Perhaps he wants to sell his technology rather than winning with racing. We’ll find out.
I would guess ‘industry relevance’ should include some kind of ‘cradle-to-grave’ philosophy whereby production and disposal are considered as part of the energy equation. I believe Gordon Murray is following that route with ‘iStream’ – a more efficient design regarding factory setup.
You make a good point Joe. I think it’s an idea worth trying and hope it’s successful. But we cannot know how relevant the series will be for the development of road technology in the short term.
I think also Formula E will attract an audience that’s happy with the rules. It seems that a lot of f1 folk want to go back to non hybrid loud f1 cars.
Perhaps it’s due to the sporting side. I wouldn’t want to be involved in a series where more tweets equals more boost, or where you are expected to swap cars mid-race. There are some weird ideas being incorporated that remind me of all of the wacky Bernie ideas that were rightfully dismissed.
“all of the wacky Bernie ideas that were rightfully dismissed.”
With one very unfortunate exception…
At some point the paying public may realise that there’s little point watching the rest of the season between Rosberg and Hamilton as the outcome will be determined by the final race.
Also, perhaps he’s not too enamoured with the thought of the series being a spec series for a while. It should be open to advancing technology… Until then it’s just a PR move.
My understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) is that after this first season the formula IS open and teams can build their own power trains – which could be interesting.
Yeah that will fine if they can do it by September…
If fans complain of the lack of engine sound in F1, then I have to wonder about this series. One thing–well, pretty much everything I haven’t heard about this series: venues, number of laps (my big question), are they support races or will it have support races?
Maybe Aggreco turned them down for sponsorship?
Most people have been told enough scare stories by enough ‘authorities’ to no longer react much to new ones or a fresh plugging of old ones, like this catch all phrase ‘climate change’. The reason for this formulas existence is the global warming scare story, and the majority of people are just not interested. Add to that the many reasons others have already listed here and it’s not surprising that a low sporting value political propaganda ‘show’ does not look to have such a bright future. The world has enough real problems, especially real environmental problems to cope with, without being saddled with this multi trillion dollar hoax standing in the way of and consuming resources that should be going towards solving actual problems. Why is the FIA waving this flag?
I agree PeterF. I see there are more Refugees than at anytime sinceWW2, over 50 Million people with no home anymore. Political Leaders throughout the world should do something positive to reduce this and end it, rather than witter on about the ” threat of climate change”. There are people dying now, climate change is for the future, Refugees and War are current today. There should be a way to resolve this in the 21st Century.
Hmm – climate change and war/refugees may be more linked than you think. When large coastal areas go underwater, when fresh water or other natural resources become more limited, when severe weather events become much more common, it will lead to population movements and fighting.
There really is more chance that earth will be invaded by aliens from Mars. H.G. Wells is better reading than IPPC reports, I recommend him as a superior source of science fiction for your entertainment.
War is the main driver, climate is not causing internecine fighting from Eastern Europe, to North Africa, the Sub Saharan Africa, and the Middle East. it’s easy to scare people to pay taxes for something that might happen. But the real threat to humanity, and to the Children now dying as Refugees, is the monstrous behaviour of other Humans. This is what World Leaders should be focussing on and using the UN to crackdown on.
PeterF, haven’t you been down this ‘hoax’ road here before?
SteveH,
When is the right time to stand up for what is right and speak out against what is wrong? Every opportunity you get, I believe! The term ‘global warming’ described the theory, namely the earth was facing a threat, carbon dioxide was causing the earth to warm and human activity was causing the carbon dioxide. That was clear and simple and initially sounded like it was a legitimate concern. But after a lot of unanswered questions and the revealing of the private internal emails of the core scientists involved which openly revealed that they were inventing the whole thing, it was suddenly renamed ‘climate change’. So now it’s a vague term that describes any change at all and names no particular source except that people are doing it. Hurricane? Climate change. Earthquake? Climate change. Terrorism? Climate change. Cold winter…. you get the point. in the mean time carbon trading has taken literally trillions out of the world economy, not to mention what governments around the world are taking in from carbon tax. But over fishing or deforestation or the effect of commercial fertiliser in rivers and the oceans at river mouths or any number of real issues… forgotten. so I say no. This is wrong. This is not a real issue, in 17 years there has been no warning and all that they told us 17 years ago has not happened. Its time to point the lies out and stop this.
+ 1 PeterF, and isn’t it just perfect that several British ( and no doubt others ) politicians, are not only involved in the so called “Renewables Industry & Carbon Trading “, but are also are in charge of the governance that is placing ever increasing tax burdens on the world, to pay for something that may or may not happen sometime in the next 50-100-1000-10000 years from now? Great work ( and great profit ) if one can get it!
The participants are getting very rich, that is very true. What I chiefly can’t understand though is why many people who really ought to be able to see what an obvious scam this is, do not. Thanks for the +1 Damian
The +1 was deserved, as it is always nice to know that there are some sensible people left on this planet…..and in answer to your question about why folk don’t see scams, well A) look at all the people every year, who get taken by scammers with the old ” I have shares to claim in a Gold Mine, however I need to pay solicitors fees of $100,000 to get my $5,000,000 Shares, if you can pay this $100k for me, I will give you 50% of my shares”…and B ) the old scammer Bernie, asked if losing teams in F1 from financial troubles, would be a problem….he said he’d be glad to see any/all teams with money troubles gone from F1…..how stupid is that eh?? Even Bernard is no longer immune to total duffness!
Peter and Damian, LOL Wow, while you guys are busy patting yourselves on the back, you’re ignoring a couple of things. Not all of us care about global warming as a reason to do things.
1) I want to stop using oil so that that idiots in the middle east have no sway over our global politics. I don’t care if we build a fence around the place and let them kill each other. Not everyone who likes EVs is a tree hugger. I’m tired of spending wars and lives in the middle east trying to stop religious fanatics from killing each other. Frankly, I’d be happy if they kept killing till everyone was dead and we could turn the place into a giant parking lot.
2) The Global Warming stuff is not a hoax. The scientist did NOT say they invented the whole thing. There was questions about some of the data early on and some people wanted to gloss that over. But at this point, it’s obvious the climate is warming…BUT…did we cause it? Who knows. We’re certainly not helping, but it’s too complex to know the entire cause.
3) Is it really such a big deal if we do have global warming? Sure, some cities and coastal areas will be lost, but it happens over a century or more. It’s not like a flood came in one day and wiped it all out. And what do I care if the guys who own beach front property today, or the guys a mile inland who will own “beach front property” a century from now are rich? Somebody will get rich and others will move. They’ll get over it.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:
4) What do I care if some people get rich off this? You think I care whether some A$$HAT oil sheikh or some executive from Shell Oil is a billionaire or whether someone making solar panels is a billionaire?
There’s always going to be someone getting rich off our backs. Unless one of you two personally has millions tied up in oil stocks, shut up and quit whining. Do like everyone with a brain and buy some stock in solar or wind companies. Or keep betting on oil companies. But either way, it’s just something to B|TCH about because you don’t like change. BUT, it doesn’t really involve you so why do YOU care which group is screwing us?
Do you really think those oil companies are you buddies? LMAO!!! We have 7+ billion people on planet earth and SOMEONE is going to get rich providing energy to them. I couldn’t care less who it is unless I’m personally one of those guys. And you really don’t either so quit your whining and patting yourselves on the back for your imagined mental superiority. All you’re doing is whining that something, somewhere in the world, may change. It’s kind of funny to listen to you two really. You’d think you were solving world hunger to listen to it. LOL
Wow evdave! You obviously didn’t take the time to actually think about the comments PeterF had made, or to my replies. I think it usually helps to read the comments here, and understand what they are about, before contributing…just a thought that you might consider before ranting in future? Or alternatively, you might also find a course of Anger Management of value.LoL.
Oh no, I’m not angry at all. I’m very amused by the whole thing. I think it’s cute when you guys get all indignant and self righteous and assume to know everyone’s motivation. So, you essentially ignored my points and settled for telling me I didn’t read your posts. Not true. I’m trying to tell you that you may be focused on the wrong issues.
So let’s try again because you guys really care and I’m curious how you would feel if perhaps your assumptions of motivations are wrong.
1) Do you think it would be helpful to have more EVs if it would stop us from being dependent on Middle Eastern oil….hence reducing the influence of a bunch of religious fanatics on our global economy and politics? Maybe everyone who wants us off oil isn’t a tree hugger.
2) Do you really care WHO gets rich off the energy we’re going to use? Do you like oil billionaires who rip you off more than solar billionaires who will one day rip you off? Oh, and they will…it’s the nature of rich and powerful people. It’s just a matter of who’s doing it. LOL
As an American, we just LOVE to go off starting wars and sticking our nose in everyone’s business. We don’t seem to be capable of not viewing ourselves as the world’s police force and doing stupid things in the name of “protecting the poor and down trodden” which in reality means….making sure we keep our oil supplies open, try to force our form of democracy and religion down everyone else’s throats LMAO!!! Hey, but we seem to believe our own BS so who am I to disillusion my fellow Americans.
So my point is to find a way to change America’s self interest. If we don’t need oil, then we will no longer start wars in the middle east….and they can happily kill each other in the name of God while we sell pay per view tickets.
Hey, Sky likes pay per view….do you think they’d pick that up for post race on F1? Hey, if we’re going to go to Bahrain and ignore what’s going on there, we should go Full Monty. Watch the GP2 race, followed by the F1 race….and then chase it down with a dose of fanatics killing each other while their rich overlords oppress them all using our oil money. 🙂
Hey evdave, in regard to your ( 1 ) ,EV’s won’t stop any dependence on Oil, as EV’s need fossil or nuclear power to run, without those power sources, the EV is dead by the roadside. And Nuclear gets pounded by bad press when it is the safest option of those currently available, so therefore, the bulk of power will remain fossil for some time to come. ( 2 ) People getting rich isn’t a problem, as long as they pay their allotted legal taxes.
And, using religion, any religion, is just an excuse used by the person/people who want to take the political and economic power, from whomever currently holds it.
Your country is a great one with a past that has much to be proud of. Like other countries, you sometimes have leaders who fall short of what might be expected of them, or of what voters hoped they would be able to do.
Starting wars is not the issue, stopping them is, and if one cannot stop them, then World Governments could at least combine under the UN, and use legitimate force against both sides in a war, so that the ordinary people can have a chance of a peaceful life.
If you think that this idea is indignant, then you have an unusual view on life imho. If you think it is self righteous, then imho, your view is quite peculiar. If you think ordinary people deserve a peaceful, constructive and secure life, then, like me, and most others, you have a humane view of how life should be, but is not. Because there is a lot of bad stuff going on in the world, that doesn’t mean we should ignore it, or not try to resolve it and restore humanity to such matters.
Damian, I have to respond up here because the thread will not let us go “deeper”.
I see where we disagree and I think it’s because you’re missing some facts:
“EV’s won’t stop any dependence on Oil, as EV’s need fossil or nuclear power to run” You’re grouping oil in with all other fossil fuels. For generating electricity in industrialized countries, oil is negligible. Remember, I’m talking about OIL, not all fossil fuels. You and PeterF have been very animated about how global warming is either a hoax or not worth our trouble.
So I’m addressing the point that oil is an issue regardless of GW, and it causes wars, famine, displaced populations in war zones, and all the other human tragedies you mention.
The US is the worlds largest consumer of oil. We’re still over 50% higher than even China’s consumption. And over 70% of our oil is used directly to fuel light duty vehicles (i.e cars, SUVs and pickup trucks). These are all FACTS that you can easily find from the EIA.gov and other sources. Less than 1% of US electricity comes from oil. Again, a simple and verifiable fact.
The US now has a fleet of over 100,000 electric vehicles and it is projected to exceed 250,000 vehicles within the year. Yes, that’s still small, but as you say, there is no excuse not to start to do the little things that will make a difference. In a few years we’ll have well over a million EVs. And it starts to add up.
The hybrids that are going on the road today are cutting our use of oil by an even greater amount. Hence why F1 and the engine manufacturers are interested in those power units.
And yes, oil is worth distinguishing from other fossil fuels because of where much of it comes from. I am very proud of many things about being an American. But our history of oil and the middle east is not one of them. There is a reason the Muslim countries call us the great satan and hate us…and yes, I hate them right back LOL But Nixon made a secret deal with Shah of Iran which allowed him to stay in power and oppress his people in exchange for a cheap oil supply. This is now a well documented fact. When the revolution came in Iran, we were not exactly popular. When bin laden launched the attack against us, it was not because he woke up one day and decided “Hey, I don’t like the shape of that country on a map…let’s kill them”. He hated us for being in the middle east with our troops. Why were we there? Simply to insure the unrestricted flow of oil and we’ve been propping up regimes ever since. We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan directly or indirectly because of oil and the middle East. We wasted trillions of dollars and killed 10’s of thousands of people on their side and 5-6,000 on our side.
You guys are talking about some legitimate problems that need to be resolved. I’m simply pointing out that you may be over looking the important role in all this misery that oil plays. We just don’t fight each other over solar panels or wind turbines. Nobody invades Germany to try and take over their solar arrays. LOL
So when PeterF tries to draw some strange connection between the FIA using a more efficient power unit and that somehow means they support “evil” that is killing people through bad energy policy for home heating units in England….I’m sorry, but I can’t just let that go. It’s so absurd that It actually makes my teeth hurt.
If you’re going to be that silly, let’s say that Formula 1 is responsible for child abuse! Hey, if a team loses and a father is unhappy, he’s likely to be in a bad mood and beat his kids. Oh My God….F1 causes child abuse! They should shut it down now! Seriously, I am stunned that anyone could try to draw a logical connection between F1 and the deaths of poor people in London because of their heating bills. That’s actually quite disturbing.
We could go on and on, but it’s not worth it, in these cases it’s best to agree to disagree. We all have opinions. One thing though, you’re not quite on target with Bin Laden. He was a creation of the CIA. He was supported by them, his followers were armed by them, and the CIA paid for their operations against the Russians. Then, when Moscow took the logical step of dumping out of Afghanistan, the CIA dropped BL like a hot potato. He got a tad upset about this and from then on he got hell bent on making trouble for the USA. What they should have done is bought him a nice island somewhere sunny, and paid him a fat pension, and his followers. That way he would not have caused the problems that he did. False economy. And, this all came to light soon after GWB Jnr went hunting for him.
What worries me is the vast extent to which efforts are being made to mitigate a perceived threat, whilst there appears to be real issues as to whether the science has been even handedly considered. The economic cost, as mentioned, of carbon trading, even when that’s not being defrauded, seems insane to me. Pollute away, if you can pass on the costs! The problem is that the scale of that cost hits poor households disproportionately. I read that the UK has one of the highest rates of deaths due to fuel poverty. That’s crazy, as are the tax incentives to convert to efficient water heating, which turned out to be just twisted enough to not apply when I looked at them. Assumes you can afford a new system. Insulation costs up front, also. Poor people are not good at planning, filling forms, obtaining loans to spread the cost. Zero interest rates mean in extremis that if you are not able to borrow, you are disadvantaged, massively so, when it comes to maintaining a home.
That is just, to me, a example of trying to apply neat economic theory to a situation which will find other outlets to obtain a preferred status quo, rather than theocratic equilibrium. No one ever objected to passing costs onto the poor, because you rarely hear from them. Only new classes of poor are being created. I was reading earlier about adjunct professors struggling to earn 25$K. There was a good discussion on hackernews. First comment at time of my looking, was very good on how easy it is to fall into the higher education trap. A girlfriend’s brother made it to be thirty six, and a father, before his first non academic job. I keep wondering if this glut of extremely educated articulate individuals is not who should be repopulating the ranks of niche publishing, but that mixes with some other effects of communication.
I personally believe we may have upset the world’s environment to such a extent all the worst claims are realistic. But when and how did we do that? And how much is turning about 180degrees going to restore things? Or does that simply cause more disturbance? Notice I say I believe we may have.. not believe we have. I’m inclined to think we have altered the climate adversely. But surely, other than nuclear war and winter, this is the biggest scare story I have known. There’s just too much to consider that can panic.
Panicking people on any large scale is not good. Exaggerated responses are risks, also. Widespread pessimism about the future is destructive of vital social cohesion. Apparent inability not only to debate the issues calmly, but even apparent inability to set out the data without bias, makes me wonder if the greater calamity will not be the sooner just from deprecating faith in scientific method and reason. Surely, when discussing risk, you have to look at all risks, and starting out discussion from a panic state is a poor way to do anything. My optimistic hope is that we simply will do enough to put a lid on the most wasteful practices. My head spins if only because it is nigh impossible to discuss any of this in neutral language, and I feel I’m just a part of the problem, then, when chiming in.
But as PeterF says, the time to speak out is at every opportunity you get. The cacophony of communication is a mixed blessing. I daily skim a website called ZeroHedge, which I think has hit a constant level of pessimism, and where the comments are often just outpourings of ad hoc home brew propaganda. But you do get outbreaks of very interesting discussion there. For example the other day on a piece on how the Kurds have de facto control over so much Iraqi oil output, which probably wasn’t the intended plan for a balanced state.
I used to scoff at media studies degrees, because a grasp of math and physics and computer science are vital to my interests in media. I’d think of the issues of understanding media as just part of being a observant citizen. But now I think we should teach the basics at grade school, because the point at which young people become participants in life’s debate is almost the point at which they use a computer. There’s such a influx of information into our lives, that tools to understand and process, or maybe dismiss, media ingestion into every aspect of our lives, seems important to basic mental health even. From there, tenets of philosophy and logic appeal as the next step. The “soft science” might need to be learned because the “hard science” of information vital to us all, climate debate being a prime example, is too often confused by the soft science disintermediation.
We live in a world of network effects. From the creation of towns and cities, to online communities, for all the visionary hopes for society and all the exchange of ideas, we also have change, impermanence, benefits accruing to a few almost in multi level marketing schemes of online credibility. And we have consequent instability, and ever more generations appearing with a voice. I think back just twenty years to the thought leaders of the online revolution, and realize that so much of their optimism was based on the sense of value they associated with this new media. They were shaped by having to have a technical understanding of it, called themselves Technorati. Any young boy or girl now simply cannot have that experience of growing up with the tech evolving and empowering them, because the tools are almost cost free, more highly developed than their immediate ability to learn all the workings, and corralled by social trends as to their availability. Facebook is just another thing on the phone, which is why I think they bought WhatsApp for such a high price. It starts to appear to me to be a chase to jump aboard the next platform for communication, which is distracting from deeper debate.
My punch line is that whilst we all should speak up at every moment we can, for things that are meaningful and even vital to human life, by chasing that tail around one forum to another, we devalue the message. Joe’s blog here is powerful, because it accommodates wide ranging thought. But it could not exist as a power without direction, without being protected by a strong sense of limits. Let’s not risk generalization of huge debates like climate, risk inadvertent adhominem over personal positions. Opinions are always allowed, I’ve seen nothing to indicate contrary. I speak as prime culprit if drifting the debate. But can we aim for insight, rather than broad brush issue exchanges? Not a criticism, just a wish, because I think the value of having wider debate here could be markedly made clearer, refined even. By insight I think I mean what occurs newly to ones thoughts, is novel in the sense of promoting fresh thought, Just my thought, wanting to keep myself also within limits, respecting a forum that has brought me a awful lot through exchanges.
Thanks John, for your considered comments. I am glad you pointed out the increase in the death rate due to fuel poverty, entirely caused by the green movement. Its both saddening and sickening to see some people advocating to the death of others for such a senseless cause. The FIA ought to hang their heads in shame for having anything to do with this. It’s not that hybrid or electric engines kill people, but, the FIA’s backing for ‘climate change’ gives a sense of respectability and credibility to its cause and disguises the fact that it’s killing people.
So let me get this straight: The UK put in place a poorly thought out policy to try and be more efficient in it’s energy consumption and you guys believe that is a reason to throw away all energy conservation and F1 should be ashamed to be dealing with the fact that people all over the world need more fuel efficient cars to simply deal with fuel prices? That F1 had to deal with all their engine manufacturers (except Ferrari) were going to drop out of F1 because it didn’t match the global demand of their customers for more efficient vehicles?
I’m not even sure what to say to that kind of “logic”. LOL
Hi edave,
Could you disconnect F1 from any inference of opinions from my comment? I think the same applies to PeterF fairly, as I don’t think he was insisting one follows the other, either.
I can’t find anything against energy conservation in either of our comments, having re read slowly once again.
I hoped I had managed to say I feel it is so had to find language that is neutral that I feel even engaging with the debate causes unintended controversy. As such, it seems my effort has been self fulfilling despite me saying (for clarity, again) “I just cannot figure out how to word things neutrally so people don’t think I’m some polar end of this debate, so it sucks even saying anything”… and there we are, next comment, and you’ve assumed I said something very different from what I did say, almost as I predicted. Did you mean to just haul me up on a actual point, or to mock my presumption I would be grossly misunderstood, or just not read what I wrote? I happen to be seriously pro energy economy and especially so when that is advancement of technological arts. The state of local pollution in artificially industrial China frightens me.
I was taught about global warming theory in the eighties by a wonderful science master who got us to read real journal papers when we were barely ten. It was a long time before I heard “global warming” again, a long time.
I had started to presume it was one of those things that the scientific and political and industrial communities had just dealt with. Because of the silence. Oh, my naivety.
But I am adamant that very little public debate answers to true scientific principle of discovery and reasoning and equanimity of language. Meanwhile there are egregious disadvantaged catastrophes and human suffering caused by eco lobbies, that PeterF and I care to highlight.
Stories that are swept under the carpet. Do you know how much industry is thinking of quitting the UK and Germany because of carbon tax costs? It’s horrendous. Whole towns and communities.
I don’t want to bias any debate, but when things are so tilted, I feel it is important to speak out. I do not have to support one side or the other to want there to be balance and fair appraisal.
Climate change is a convenient political tax… Green fascism. We are under more real threat from “extremist” elements of our own species than anything else.
Formula E…? It has no existing fan-base, no history, is based not on the wishes of motor sport enthusiasts, but reaction to Green” dictats; I believe F “E” will disappear. I have been electric go-karting 3 times; they are but a fun afternoon for “stag” weekend trips, not karting/racing enthusiasts.
Of course it has no history and no fanbase; it’s new, that’s pretty clearly inferred.
The odds are you’re right of course, independent of anything that may or may not be wrong with the concept. Recent history has shown that starting a new racing series is difficult and many appear to fail early. Like F1 teams.
I’m not that tied up with the climate science, I just find the concept of street circuit racing between lightweight fast-accelerating single seaters to be an exciting prospect.
I keep wondering what will happen when almost every modest car can perform astoundingly, and presumably there will be artificial limiters and people hacking them left and right. City driving could become very interesting in twenty years! I think Google and others looking at autonomous cars have thought ahead about this unleashing of performance on every vehicle.
“Thus F1 is actually better placed than Formula E when it comes to industry relevance.”
The industry doesn’t seem to find F1 very relevant, either.
Audi, Toyota, Porsche, and Nissan have all chosen Le Mans and the WEC over F1. And there are rumours about Honda, Mazda, Ford, and others looking to join in.
There may be more to this than than meets your eye.
Distaste for Bernie?
With this we can agree. Wholly electric cars are not viable in the long-term and F1 is positioned perfectly with their hybrid focus. Formula E is a nice concept as it will likely attract new fans (and technologies) into motorsport. Yet these new fans (and technologies) will also likely then seek out more exciting outlets, such as F1 — as this where most of the drivers (and technologies) have been exiled from and/or procured. Formula E fans will soon realize that it is an inferior series bolstered by gimmicks, much like an electric/hybrid car is on the road today. What happened to when F1 knew it was #1 and wouldn’t give a toss?
Another attack piece on Formula E? The fact that Drayson is selling doesn’t suggest troubles with Formula E. There are any number of equally possible reasons that could explain this sale.
Drayson might be suffering from completely unrelated financial troubles. Drayson’s marketing group may have failed to line up sponsors. Drayson may have been lured by a tidy and immediate profit from this sale.
Do F1 journalists really need to carry the battle flag? Tearing down Formula One competition should be the job for F1’s owners.
Just look at the industry… Even Formula E people admit that the industry has changed direction since they began planning but no doubt you know better.
“…the industry has changed direction…”. What are you speaking of? That Tesla’s Model S is outselling the BMW 7 series, Mercedes S class at the the Audis….COMBINED here in the US? The fact that Audi is now readying an all electric SUV for Europe, BMW with their i series, Mercedes getting into it as well?
I’m a huge F1 fan and I’ve been following your blog for a long time now and never found myself at odds with you before. But why do you feel the need to do a very negative piece on FE now?
How do you know Drayson didn’t decide to step out because they have other priorities or some conflict? Perhaps they wanted to be able to use their own tech more and not be in a spec series this first year?
Do you have actual news that we don’t know about that would cause you to take such a negative slant on this? Seriously curious. You’re definitely entitled to your opinion and I love your blog so I’m surprised to see you being so negative on this when you get upset with the morons in F1 for speaking this way.
Drayson has been the poster boy of green energy racing for a long time. Stepping out makes no sense at all.
If you follow the motor industry and the viability of consumer vehicles you will understand what I am saying. It is very clear. EV needs a major technical breakthrough to get significant growth in the next 10 years. Hybrid is the main thrust. What is the problem with this argument.
Look, I really enjoy your blog and won’t stop reading it or hammering you just because I’m an EV bigot and we disagree on something. I’m just asking you to not be too harsh or negative on FE while it’s trying to get off the ground, just like you want LDM and Bernie to stop badmouthing the current F1. It just doesn’t help.
I know that I’m very biased towards EVs (hence my moniker) but I’m also looking at the sales numbers. Here in the States, we’ll have about the same number of pure EVs sold this year as we do Toyota Prius (Prii?). That may not seem like much, but that is an incredible growth curve over the last 3 years. In countries where they’ve had a heavy push, such as Norway, the Model S is actually the number one selling car in the country.
Also, I don’t think it needs the huge breakthrough that you are saying. Families with second cars are finding them very viable already and the model of going to a gas station is highly over rated. I think they’re within a year or two of having EVs in mass production with 100-120 mile range. When you charge them up every night at home, that makes the car viable for a much larger percentage of the population. With a steady 8-10% increase in battery tech which we’re seeing now, this will become viable for larger percentages of the population.
I’m not saying they’ll replace ICE cars or Hybrids any time soon, but they are becoming a relevant sector.
I think Formula E is a good way to push this up more rapidly. Moving to SiC inverters will reduce the weight and size of those components by 75% and the range by another 10% because of their efficiency and actually eliminates any cooling needed for those electronics.
Add on another battery upgrade in a year or two and they could easily be running 45 minute sprint races. Perhaps two in a weekend rather than the silly gimmick of swapping cars! How stupid is that?
Formula E is a way for people to make money
I think Tesla are considered as reviving the industry even by those nostalgic for old Detroit. There is such respect and recognition for that ell electric effort, it may be flattering to deceive, but just look about. Tesla has put a rocket up the arse of every auto company, and most are responding and even saying thanks.
As to technical breakthroughs for pure EVs, that is a big reason why Tesla opened their patent portfolio. Because they were founded on a principal that understand to be if they become a firebrand for the state of the art, no matter what happens, they will capture enough hearts and minds to be a successful brand. Again, that fits with why they gave away their patents for all to use.
The tricky thing is that you want scale of production for any technology, and the technology is advancing very fast, so which one will break through to real mass production? It might be more a market than chemical equation, which battery tech changes the game.
Edave, I’m not much up on these things, but I think you had me somewhat wrong above.
Joe, I think everything is happening faster these days. Seriously. What was on a ten year cycle, almost a given, I think is on a faster cycle now. I think we’ve started to break through so many limits to development that even if ten years is only now nice or eight, we are reducing that horizon, bit by bit, faster and faster. I believe by the time we are all hopefully in the comfort of old age, we shall not recognize much at all of our presumptions of technological now.
This was not an “attack piece”, sorry, it was just a report and an insightful one at that.
Joe, I would have thought the World Endurance championship where the manufacturers can decide on what type of hybrid and engine technology they want to use has more industry relevance.
But less reach…
I would give Formula E one season, one and a half, at most before it disappears. It’s a gimmick and a duff one at that.
I disagree about the WEC, there the organizers seem to have hit on a good spec and it’s drawing spectator, manufacturer and sponsor interest. The series is also more relevant for hybrid racing than F1, imho.
For now. Reducing audience though.
WEC regs are much more flexible which can only be a bonus for a manufacturer looking to prove/promote road car technology. F1 regs are too strict to allow much development. The fact that the top 3 WEC teams are running different systems is a good thing in my mind rather than being funneled down a single route by the organisers.
Neither F1 and FE are ‘industry relevant’. How many of us will stop half way to work and jump into a new fully charged car because your first one has gone flat!
The pace of progress will be interesting to watch though. Those saying hybrid is the only way to go may be eating your words in 5 or 10 years time.
I would question the industry relevance of at least some of the hybrid systems that are currently in use in the WEC.
The system that Audi currently uses – the electro-mechanical flywheel system Williams developed – has some interesting possibilities, but there are a lot of issues with the system as well (packaging, cost of manufacture etc) that means the system is currently impractical for road cars.
If anything, Williams’s hybrid power division were looking at the possibility of moving into other sectors instead – there was some interest in the energy sector for using similar flywheel systems as a form of “pumped storage” to smooth out spikes and troughs in electricity demand.
As for Toyota, their system is based on supercapacitors. Supercapacitors do tend to have an advantage in terms of charging and discharging rates over conventional batteries and potentially can withstand more charging cycles before a degradation in performance, which seems to be why Toyota have adopted them.
However, there is a notable drawback – the energy density of even the best supercapacitors is still only a fraction of an equivalent lithium ion battery. Supercapacitors may therefore be very good for providing short bursts of power, but at the moment that lower energy density means that they are of limited use for long distance journeys.
Their use by the consumer vehicle industry is therefore quite limited right now because of that issue – only Mazda use them right now, but their motorsport efforts are more interested in promoting their diesel engine technology rather than their hybrid power efforts.
The flywheel in the Audi may be expensive, but not so much when compared to the competition in the LMP1 sector. Packaging is better as it is smaller and lighter than a battery pack.
The hybrid power group is working in other sectors, public transport. There is currently a double decker bus driving round London, more are on the way. It may not be a race car, but has the potential to rate a LOT of fuel if it becomes widely used. The r&d from Audi e tron is very useful and transferable. Le Mans 24hr proves its durability, 3 years in a row now.
The other power balancing usage is the fixed large flywheel staying with Williams advanced engineering.
Lord Drayson is a working peer (an active member of the House of Lords) and may aspire for a junior job in the 2015 UK government. Drayson runs a few companies which provide the personal wealth he has dispensed to promote his political and motor sport interests. He has further interests (eg Motorsport Industry Association) which consume time and do not earn money directly.
One might conclude that he has enough on his plate, that running a Formula E team might be a portion too many.
Serious question, Joe. Is every routine triviality that occurs in F1 deserving of our huzzahs? It’s getting old.
I have no idea what this question means.
Have you heard Steve Matchett wetting himself? For shame, if it’s so exciting I don’t need to be told, ad infinitum, even if I’m watching in the US.
Our business is battery chargers of all types, we go up to 100kW+ in output power.
The problems involved with fast charging any kind of battery are fairly well known, but as the technology gets deeper into exotic chemistry and shortter charging times, the risks grow as well.
We have done a number of ‘specials’ over the years but have yet to see any battery technology that enables really fast charging, like under an hour, safely.
The other issue is the size/bulk of the charging system. Switch-mode power supplies are light enough but there aren’t that many available at the high powers required. We don’t make that type, ours are mainly controlled thyristor types which are heavy and bulky but our market is for long life and reliability.
And no mention is ever made about the impact on battery life in fast charging. Fast charging = extra heat, extra heat = shorter life.
So faster charging is not the answer. Smarter charging as in wireless under road providing smaller shorter extra charges more regularly is one way.
“There are some who believe that with the wholly electric car is still a long way from being financially viable..”
Sure, although there was a fully electric Nissan hatchback parked in my local Tesco yesterday. Perhaps my run down seaside town is running ahead of the curve?
Formula E (or, rather, the FIA) made a bad mistake making it a spec series… I hope its not a fatal mistake because I’d love to see the open formula version from 2016.
You are deliberately misunderstanding, or at least I hope you are because the alternative is not flattering.
In all the discussions on the pros and cons of Electric powered vehicles, racing cars or road cars, no one seems to be addressing the cogent point of how these machines are charged? Yes, from charging points around cities etc, I know that! However the real killer for these idealistic vehicles is that they have to be charged by some electric producing facility, be it, Coal,Gas,Nuclear,Wood Chip, Other Bio, Wind ( pointless ) or Solar Panel ( and let’s all starve while we turn our agricultural land over to panels to produce electricity for our city cars…..).
Electric cars are in some respects a great idea, but merely using electric cars does not somehow resolve long term questions on power production, or make the world a ” Greener ” place? The electricity for them has to be made, for them to be used.
It’s all a bit like the Recycling issue. This is quoted as being a saviour for landfill, and the human race, and we are all beaten over the head to comply with ever more restrictive rules on recycling…..but why don’t the talking heads who devote so much time to discussing how to recycle, spend just a little of that time on the other end of the problem, and the easiest bit to tackle to solve waste….obviously it’s the Packaging that needs the first point of investigation. Reduce needless packaging, and Recycling drops away as a matter for concern.
Electric cars have been around for over 100 years, they have not proven to have more than very limited use, and that will not change in the next 10-20 years or even further on than that. People buying them are just being fooled by smart advertising companies to pay huge sums for a car that will take them on a road to nowhere. For the exorbitant price of a Nissan Leaf, there are hundreds of better car choices in petrol or diesel, that are more economical to use in the real world!
David, just for myself I am not betting on any ten or twenty year gap before EVs start to be sensible. I actually think it will be much sooner. Just a hunch. We have absorbed vast technological change costs before, think the development of electronics during the cold war. We will absorb it. We will neutralize the debt, maybe do stupid inversions of the economy. Yes, I am afraid that TPTB will sacrifice a historically (to all historians only looking back forty years!) comfy middle class, lock stock and barrel. They’ll cast swathes of population into poverty the kind my father, born one hundred and seven years ago would have recognized, too. Because, if it is about long term species survival, what are you going to do? Say Darwin was full of shit? It’s cruel, and it is the more cruel because to avert panic and mayhem you have to avoid admitting any plan, but it is pragmatic.