Some strange things have been happening in F1 circles in recent days, with subtle shifts going on in the way things are being done. Bernie Ecclestone suddenly declared himself a fan of social media and the F1 company is now doing a lot of stuff that was unthinkable six months ago. At the same time, Jean Todt appears to have understood that things need to be changed and has been working hard on getting the teams to agree on an engine fix that will suit everyone. It is not what Bernie wanted, but he seems to have given up on the idea of an independent engine because the only real support for the idea was coming from Red Bull and it is very clear that the Austrian company would flip-flop to the other side of the argument if they could find an engine manufacturer.
The best way to do that is for the sport to be stable and to play up its credentials to car manufacturers. There is a statistic floating around at the moment which really makes the point: if the levels of efficiency in F1 engines were applied to road cars across the board, the average fuel consumption on a road car would be 165 mpg. Now, if F1 was plugging this point, and could boast that the racing was more cost-effective, Red Bull would have an engine supplier. The fact that F1 is failing to deliver its strongest message is not surprising given the lack of promotion that is now institutionalised, but increasingly other players are “going freelance” and doing their own thing. Shell, a major backer of Ferrari, recently unveiled its own rather too cute-looking high-efficiency petrol-burning concept car in China, to draw attention to the fact that there is a lot of mileage left in conventional internal combustion engines. Shell says that it could take decades before electric vehicles will help to bring down emissions and that more work needs to be done with conventional machinery. Shell has no plans to manufacture the car and was simply showing what could be done.
The chassis regulations that have been agreed make very little sense to me and it is clear that Mercedes has had a think about it and is now trying to stop the changes going ahead. Of course it is in their interest to keep the status quo, but actually they are right. The aerodynamic rules don’t need to be changed. Convergence will happen if you leave things as they are. Changing things will play into the hands of the big teams (which defeats the argument that Mercedes is simply trying to cling on to its current competitveness).
The key thing for me, however, is that there seems to have been a shift in thinking amongst the big players in recent weeks. There is more of a willingness to compromise from Ecclestone and the FIA seems to be a little more willing to put up a fight. The question is why? Is it, perhaps, due to a meeting that took place recently between Jean Todt and CVC in New York? Or is it because the potential buyers out there realise that the only way for the game to go forward is to get deals in place with everyone before they do a deal? And those wishing to sell have accepted that this is the only game in town at the moment.
It will be worth watching how things develop. There will be an announcement later today about the engine deal that has been agreed, once the World Motor Sport Council has added its rubber stamp.
joeblogsf1 
165mpg and a large reduction in noise.
The real Formula E (E = environment).
This is what F1 should have been making a big noise about.
Actually, if you look under the excellent hype (what F1 should be doing) what it demonstrates is NOT an environmental solution to transport needs. Yes some gimmicky recharging solutions and even some slight improvements in efficiency.
But remember, the mid-race pitstop is not needed to change tyres or a driver pee break. Its because despite the weight of batteries onboard there isn’t enough energy to race for more than 30 minutes. There’s no sensible refuel (charging time) still, so its a complete second car.
Translate that to the real world and you still have to plan your journeys, You can’t just stop at a charging point and be ‘full’ in less than 5 minutes.
In fact the nearest to environmentally friendly vehicles (still not necessarily economic) is, surprise, surprise, a hybrid, sort of like …. F1 !!
Turns out that well over 90% of commuters commute less than 300 miles in a day. Which makes electric perfectly applicable and most environmentally friendly – based on generation and where CO2 emissions can be eliminated at single generation point more easily. Also, most cars are charged at night – at off peak hours.
The Shell concept car bears a striking resemblance to the Gordon Murray designed T25 – including the trademark 1+2 seating arrangement. Is this more than coincidence or just an example of ‘convergent evolution’?
Gordon Murray designed the Shell car.
Ah yes! I was trying to remember what that reminded me of. The main fruit of that intriguing production process he was talking about but presumably can’t secure the funding for,
Please go to Gordon Murrays web site and educate yourself.
I know all about Gotdon Murray’s adventures and have discussed it with the man himself. This is not the point. Shell delivered a message how they did it is not relevant.
I was responding to BenW comment which seemed a bit off hand, I wouldn’t be so rude as to make such a suggestion to you Joe.
It reminds ME of the artist’s impressions of the ship which, in all probability, won’t be named “Boaty McBoatface”, because I am irredeemably shallow.
What on earth is a “standard power unit exhaust sound generator”?
It is possible that Marchionne has found a technical development partner in the owner of Google, having been firmly rejected by all other motor companies he has approached. This could bode well for the future in a few years time if Alphbet stick with the partnership long enough. Will this affect F1? It may help release some funds for a second FCA team as did the much improved financial performance of the group in the first quarter. But the range still needs re designing from the ground up.
Re the many year wait for electric cars to solve the pollution problem, well I understand (maybe wrongly) that a single volcano does more damage in about four minutes than all the man made pollution world wide in a year) Thus even if mankind stops using all fossil fuels completely for ever, the global warming will continue though natural volcanic activity. The release of methane from northern hemisphere lakes that had previously been permanently frozen will accelerate the process.
Has Bernie seen the light? It is more likely that someone has shone a torch in his eyes revealing how he can create another revenue stream from F1, something we have all been banging on about for years. But he must still not undermine the tv deals, though these have now been aimed at the shrinking pay tv audience. He must prove new audience reach first. He has maybe woken up to 2020 when the current CAs run out and the value of FOM effectively plummets to zero.
Not even close with the volcano comment I’m afraid, we are realising 10x as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere per year than has ever been released into atmosphere before, and for the reference point they are using a carbon dioxide event that happened millions years ago and dumped tones of the stuff into the atmosphere and caused dramatic climate change back then.
Here’s the exact figures, I understand I can’t link to websites:)
They found that the maximum emissions rate during the beginning of the PETM was likely on the order of about 1.1 billion tons per year. Overall, the PETM onset is thought to have lasted more than 4,000 years.
This compares to today’s emissions rates of closer to 10 billion tons per year during a period of just a few centuries.
Not ‘maybe’, definitely wrongly re the volcanos. A quick google will put you right but click here in case of laziness 🙂 https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
Always nice to be right!
Is Arrivabene ever going to talk to anyone? A feature in GP+ would be good. He always looks highly stressed on tv!
The 2017 chassis and aero regs increase downforce considerably. They make the cars even wider and more difficult to pass as the diffuser is also increased in size and will start in front of the rear axle, thus the upwash will be greater, the air “dirtier”. The wider tyres are good idea, but the aero needs reducing, not increasing.
“The fact that F1 is failing to deliver its strongest message is not surprising given the lack of promotion”
If having great fuel economy is the strongest message that F1 could deliver, then the sport is in deep trouble imo.
Maybe I’m old fashioned, but in my mind getting from point A to B efficiently and racing are two opposite things. Racing by definition, is not efficient. Hypermiling behind a truck is efficient, but also very boring.
Trying to make racing efficient results in Frankenstein situations like race laptimes which are up to nine or ten seconds slower compared to qualifying because of fuel saving engine maps and lift and coast driving techniques.
Nobody likes that. Webber has commented that 24 hour endurance racing is more knife-between-the-theeth than F1 (!!!), and Stoffel Vandoorne made similar comments about Super Formula earlier this week.
I personally think the wider cars for 2017 might be great, but I fear that due to higher drag we will see even more energy saving nonsense during the races, at least if the allowed limit of 100 KG race fuel is not increased.
rpaco
yes you are wrong – i suggest you do some reading from “reputable” sources (ie independent peer reviewed academic papers) – not just your average internet blogger with a narrow opinion
the point is that there is nothing we can do to stop a volcano – that is a purely natural geological process that has been happening for all time. There IS an awful lot we CAN do to stop human impacts
The gasoline emissions may abate, but electric cars in China will be powered with coal. A friend of my son lives in Beijing, and told me the pollution level never gets above 500ppm, regardless of how much is in the air, because that’s the official limit.
Check molten salt reactors. Bill Gates is working via TerraEnergy with deployment target of 2020 or earlier with…you guessed it, China.
Does VJ still have a seat on the World Motor Sport Council ?
I suppose if he has a FAX machine in his hideaway he can still vote.
Yes he does and on the F1 Commission
Marchionne also talked to Apple, all with an eye toward self-driving tech…Google and Apple both have scads of cash, but most of Apple’s is in Europe, and Apple’s SVP Eddie Cue is on the board at Ferrari so Apple may have a leg up. Plus a multi-color logo wouldn’t look quite as good on a red car…
A lot of people have talked to Apple
“well I understand (maybe wrongly) that a single volcano does more damage in about four minutes than all the man made pollution world wide in a year) Thus even if mankind stops using all fossil fuels completely for ever, the global warming will continue though natural volcanic activity. ”
[grinds teeth]
It only takes about 1 minute of googling to shoot down that zombie anti climate science myth, I believe the correct figure is that (all!) current volcanic activity equals around 3% of yearly human fossil fuel emissions.
That’s also climate science myth #72 at skeptical science – http://skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
Where they also keep a page listing all the usual, many times debunked, mainstream media anti climate science talking points – http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
*Please* start reading robertscribbler.com for some, imo very well written, accurate climate science reporting.
I also highly recommend the documentaries “Chasing Ice” and “Merchants of Doubt” for 2 worthwhile viewpoints on the topic. CI covers a photographers attempts to set up a system for time-lapse photography of melting glaciers.
MoD details the many parallels and connections between the tobacco industries denial of the dangers of smoking post Surgeon Generals smoking advice in the late 60s and the fossil fuels industries use of the *exact same tactics*, sometimes the selfsame scientists who tried to tell us smoking isn’t a danger are now doing the same for the FFI!
Since the release of Merchants of Doubt a “smoking gun” trail of memo’s & emails that exposes the FFI’s knowledge have been uncovered too, google “exxon knew” for about a bajillion articles.
Please note I have a no link policy on this blog
Joe Saward – Please note I have a no link policy on this blog
Understood, thanks for letting my post with 2 links through, I always think it’s good to provide links to the science (via SkepticalScience.com) when people spout faulty bs like that many times debunked volcanoes crap.
The Principal at Ferrari is a very very powerful voice in the Auto Mfg. Industry. Very straight forward, very black & white, very blunt. In FCA Supplier Mtg’s he is a FORCE. Maybe he ‘persuaded’ Bernie & JT to see his point of view..?
I don’t know what to fear most. The arrogant, divisive Bernie or the contrite, cooperative Bernie. Dangerous times for F1.
At least he’s not afraid to criticise the ludicrous ‘Aeroscreen’ bolted on to the Red Bull or Ferrari’s equivalent monstrosity. Bernie is what he is.
While he’s about it I urge him, or anyone else, to lobby to get the FIA to modify the rules excepting drivers to be penalised for gearbox/engine replacements which are currently destroying any chance of decent competition at the front of the field during a Grand Prix weekend. Manufacturer’s points only deducted please – blindingly obvious? I’d say F1 in shooting themselves in the foot again only I doubt it has any feet left by now.
The FIA does not make the rules any more, did you not hear?
There’s me thinking it’s the race stewards now.
Saving lives is ludicrous….interesting.
I actually wrote “ludicrous ‘Aeroscreen’ so your words, not mine.
Mr. Saward, please tell me the story with the “exhaust sound generator” is a joke or at least a misinterpretation??? That can´t be true…
Thank you Joe
…the c word….convergence….am all for it….lets have more …not yet another round of rule changes that threaten its arrival. The Shanghai race was a terrific watch and if this indicates convergence, then more please. The Red Bulls raised their game and I read positive comments from Daniel Ricciardo about the Tag Heuer….err… Renault PU. I dont doubt that RB might be more than happy to stay with that supplier for 2017. After all, now that Renault is a constructor once again, theres greater motivation to develop the PU. And if Renault can be successful here, lets hope Honda can too…..Mclaren scoring points again….more convergence.
I often wonder what Signor Marchionne is up to. Successfully steering the strange ship that is FCA must be a challenge. Fiat are small cars that sell well in Italy. I hope his legacy will be to finally sort out the brand that has so much undelivered potential…. Alfa Romeo…..the new Giulia has been waiting in the wings too long…but the brand needs a cohesive range. And to promote it I would welcome an ‘Alfa Romeo’ team in F1 !
Your rumour mention has been brought up on another site to me as a point of argument and the individual pointed me to this article. I told the guy that what you’ve done here is some really lazy reporting on this 165mpg efficiency point. You report a rumour and provide no detail, source, methodology and measurements. It is deceptive, incomplete and absolute hype. Vapour really.
Can you clarify the source of your 165mpg, details of it and how these unrealistic claims of amazing mpg keep coming up? While you’re at it maybe you can clarify why official F1 site claims 600hp from V6 and 160hp limit from ERS, yet we keep hearing some 900HP or “close to 1000HP” hype about these PUs. I am sure the F1 fans would appreciate some good reporting instead of a “rumour”, especially on the 165mpg claims.
Regards.
Don’t read it.
Wow, that is lazy reporting. I guess you have no data to back it from the people that feed the statistic you regurgitated here in your article. Thanks for confirming there is nothing of substance here to read.
Don’t waste energy commenting. Go and find better…
FYI – here is how I feel about these PUs and their efficiency claims by the way:
>
What am I supposed to say to Joe? He quotes some statistic making the rounds – no explanation behind it. Now, I’m not saying I’m right and my view cannot be challenged. But if it will be challenged I expect some basis of information about why my view should change. I’m ready to change my view, I’m not locked in. I simply evaluate the information I gather and come to a conclusion. However, I’m always prepared to challenge my conclusion – simply not on basis of a general statement like Joe’s that “There is a statistic floating around at the moment which really makes the point: if the levels of efficiency in F1 engines were applied to road cars across the board, the average fuel consumption on a road car would be 165 mpg.”
I gave you that XL1 article link for a few reasons. It shows how much effort is needed around rolling resistance, weight, and how fine the balance is when going for MPG in real world. You can see how quickly things erode on MPG front, how much that effort cost as well, and what challenges such an effort has in a commercial front. Some really good engineers worked on that effort too – they probably came up with that clever VW diesel solution we’ve been hearing so much about recently – and say what you want, that was cleaver and fooled the world for years – nearly a decade.
I’ve read quite a bit on this subject and there are many more engineers working on this problem than there are in F1 or at VW. There are serious challenges that need to be balanced – starting with commercial viability, weight, efficiency, etc. And while you don’t often like my joking about 33s sustained full power of F1 car, the reality is that the heavier cars in real world could be driving for hours with minimal or no braking, and any energy recovery technology is additional weight which must be carried for the entire life of the car. If moving that weight during acceleration and coasting cost more energy than the recovery system can recapture during braking – there is no case for it. If cost of that energy recovery system in manufacture, installation, ownership and maintenance cost more than fuel it saves that will be a hard case for the sales guy to make to the consumer as well.
There are other serious objections to this apparently magical and marvellous technology that is PU. Everyone is doing their darnedest to hype it and make a case for it being some magical path. Honestly, it is funny. I always pick at Mercedes, but they are big pushers of this technology and obviously leaders in F1 with it – so to see them recently launch new versions of their premium cars and pack the full of V8s or V12 always makes me wonder what’s going on exactly. I mean, if the technology is so awesome, but has such a premium cost surely it can be justified in these premium cars at premium prices – yet here they are with more V8s and more V12s.
As for your question, you see there are all these claims about how wonderful the power of the F1 PU system is. Now the reality of it is quite strangely not detailed. Even the claims of 900 or 1000HP seem strange while official F1 site claims 600HP from V6 and 160hp or so from ERS for 33s – which in itself doesn’t add up. The way I see it, the curve of energy recovery is not linear at all, it is more normal. As a result even with higher mass of road cars, the speed is usually 10x lower than F1 speeds. In traffic you’ll likely coast for ideal efficiency, and then at speeds of 30km/hr you’ll apply the brakes for a very short duration of time. Yes, you need less power, but the amount of power you’ll generate from recovery is much much lower than an F1 car entering a massive braking point at over 300km/hr. It all comes down to various calculations and guess what – we are in 3rd year of F1 hybrids, and similar efforts have been in place in LMP category – and where are the detailed calculations to prove the use case in real world? I mean, an independent body could look at this, could give us the pros and cons at this point. I have many questions about these PUs myself.
To sum up my view: These PUs are possible because of F1 braking forces. They are highly complex and extremely expensive. Commercially they are not viable. Maintenance would be prohibitive and ownership not enjoyable. Even if the claimed efficiencies can be realized, and that’s a big IF, there are better ways to crack this challenge. Those ways are also simpler in terms of build and execution. As I told you many times, lighter better batteries, which are coming – are going to crack this nut.
You make interesting points re the PU but similar could be said of many things that originated on F1 cars and are now standard across road cars. Sometimes it takes time for F1 useful/viable/doable to become commercially useful/viable/doable
F1 is fun and entertainment. I don’t believe anything came from F1 except some features automakers put on cars to charge premium prices or something that is sold by association – as in F1 inspired. I may be wrong as it is early and I just woke up, however anything that is purely F1 is applicable in F1 only. If it’s in real world it has been watered down to paddle shifters on a Civic. Personally I find this while road relevance angle nauseating. It’s ruining the extreme fun and sound of F1. As Mercedes AMG insist on this PU they then go and sell V8s and V12. Their #1 AMG engine is a V8 and they just started talking about a hybrid hyper sports car – it will be V12 based. And here we are putting up with farting PU engines and fuel limits for what reason exactly?
…I should note again, hybrids have been on the road for 2 decades before F1 saw it as some uncharted territory.
On the subject of efficiency and fuel savings in F1, did you see the article where Toto addresses Lewis conspiracy theories?
See if you can spot the part in this piece where the hyped 50kg of fuel savings by these advanced PUs became a total joke to me. Hint: Private jet and parts being flown is involved. And to think that we have so suffer with these party quiet overly complex things that made our beloved F1 into 100Kg+ overweight beastly things when one trip to fetch some parts burned all the fuel the entire grid will “save” this entire season. Who are the lunatics really?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/formula-1/2016/05/01/lewis-hamilton-sabotage-talk-is-work-of-lunatics-after-russian-g/
Someone find out the type of jet that was used, hours flown round trip and hourly fuel the jet burns in kg to see if this little PU fix cost 1 season or 2 seasons worth of fuel savings of the entire F1 PU grid. I’m going to take a shot in the dark and say 20000kg of jet fuel was burned right in the upper atmosphere to get the parts to fix this magical efficient PU for Lewis. But don’t look at that, focus on the 50kg it saved during the GP.
It was stupid to even suggest conspiracy. I’m with Toto on this one.
This wasn’t about the conspiracy, it was about the claims of amazing PU fuel savings on one end like the 165mpg statistic you quote without backup, and then wasting 1 or 2 seasons worth of PU fuel savings vs. V8s to fetch some parts for a PU for a single race.
I can explain exactly how re figure was arrived at but you don’t interest me enough to do that.
Then do it for your other readers. I’m a family man, so I wasn’t liking for your interest.
Just to inform your readers. 7000kg. That’s about how much fuel a Gulf Stream would burn London to Sochi round trip to fetch some parts for Lewis. 1.5 seasons worth of fuel savings by PUs over V8s right there – poof. Not counting of course what it cost to manufacture all the PU parts for the ERS system. Those we’ll assume materialized out of thin air with no fuel cost or CO2 emissions attached to them. Since I don’t like you leave your readers hanging with incomplete information. But hey, let’s keep hyping up how awesome at saving fuel the PUs are.
Regards.
It strikes me that someone – not you Joe – might have shares in oil companies…
Not at all. I own no oil energy interests. I strongly believe in fuel economy and reducing commuting fleet C02 footprint and can’t wait for the world to go electric. However, F1 clearly doesn’t believe this fuel angle inside the sport and acts like this clearly show it. If PUs are so hyped then it should be a uniform message by F1 by words and actions. You don’t say “we want efficiency” by forcing 1B PU effort and then piss that away by fetching parts with jets burning fuel in the atmosphere. That message doesn’t line up, and it’s funny how F1 media give it a complete pass. What I have interest in is F1 being extreme, drivers pushing all the time, F1 engines sounding like F1 engines should – not farting around the track. And most importantly I want to see laps posted in quali be within spitting distance of fastest lap on Sunday. 3, 4, 5s gap to pole – what is that?
If I lose that to some fuel saving theme those inside F1 don’t really care about or believe in, then I’d like to know why that is.
@Sebee
You are not owed any explanations – this is a blog – you can read it, or you can not read it.
I’m not sheeple. If someone claims journalistic principles as his recent piece somewhat does than those reading the content have a right to ask for explanation. If you accept everything you read without analysis or critical though, that is your prerogative. I ask questions.
That’s fine. This is s blog. You can take it as journalism if you wish to do so, but it is a blog. Read the blog rules
Blog rules are don’t ask about anything writer writes because you will be brushed off? Got it.
You don’t understand what a blog is.
According to the amazing wikipedia, a blog is a discussion or informational site published on the World Wide Web.
I see you interact with your readers, but when asked a simple question about the 165mpg claims you refuse to address it for my interest or that of others. I gather either because that information is not available to you, or it has so many faults and assumptions in it that it would be ripped apart in analysis. Not only that, what good is 165mpg fuel economy if you’re going to burn 7000kg of fuel in the atmosphere in a jet to fetch some parts for it? All valid questions you keep circling on this discussion and informational site known as a blog. I guess the information is limited and discussion restricted. As I said, got it. I know I am being a bit stand-offish, but it doesn’t impact the validity of my questions.
This is what the Blog Rules say. Read them.
A lot of people do not understand what the word “blog” means. A blog is not a traditional new source, but rather a personal web log (hence the name) of whatever the author wants to include. Blogs tend to have themes and in this case the theme is the complex world of Formula 1 motor racing, but if I wish to write about wasabi, French taxi drivers or hairstyles in Peru, I am at liberty to do so. I am happy to allow people to air their opinions in comments, as long as this is done in a respectful fashion. A good rule of thumb when writing a comment is to question whether you would say such a thing to someone’s face…
You must remember that you are, in effect, a guest in my house, so being abusive and rude about me or others is simply not acceptable and such comments will be deleted and the commenter will be blocked from making further comments. In other words, you get blackballed from the club.
So, the reason I did not wish to discuss the statistic with you was not because I could not justify the number, but rather because I did not like the tone that you took. You were too busy telling me that I am bad at what I do and missed the fact that your behaviour in these comments was oafish and that there is no requirement for me to justify anything to anyone – if I don’t want to. If you had behaved in a different way, I would have happily told you.
Turns out we won’t get an answer. So be it.
I just re-read everything I wrote, and I would absolutely be prepared to say everything I wrote to your face. If you read my initial comment in calm tone or tone of concern, you’ll see there is nothing rude there – unless you take the “lazy reporting” statement I note of a statistic floating around without details as quality stuff. I do think a claim so significant should not be glazed over in passing as you’ve done. You think it’s not news or reporting, but you’ve just told people about something that happened – you want to bet it’s news to your readers?
I must also point out that your claim that this is not a traditional news source is quite inaccurate, so why hide behind it? Your latest posts are absolutely news reporting and lines on what is and isn’t news are more blurred than ever. You write about Susie Wolf, about new CEO of Ferrari, about what’s going on at Pirelli. You are reporting news and you are a journalist and to your readers this is all new, or news. You may not think Stacy getting a purse is news, but it could be to Joanne. Point being, it’s open to interpretation what you’re doing here as an official media accredited journalist and how your readers receive it.
F1 has been impacted by these PUs and this new direction, which has ripped out the essence of the F1 experience for many fans. It’s been done in the name of efficiency and saving fuel. I’ve always questioned the efficiency and fuel savings claims of these PUs as well as their justification. Now with the latest episode of jets flying to fetch parts I question the beliefs of the F1 fraternity in this PU path as clearly they have complete disregard for fuel savings and efficiency claims they push down on teams and fans.
As you can see from my discussion elsewhere I pasted here, your blurp of incomplete information is being taken by others as fact. It’s also only found here, not on other sites. So while to you it’s a blog, to others it’s a source of information and insight. As I will now leave your house not to return, not welcomed, consider explaining the 165mpg claim not for my sake, but for the sake of your regular visitors who hopefully are curious. I no longer am curious, as I’m quite certain the 165mpg claim is full of assumptions and variables and most importantly won’t deliver this 165mpg in a car a consumer can buy for 15000 Euro. Interestingly enough, a small displacement non-hybrid car with 50-60mpg efficiency is easy to find for such an amount or less. US annual hybrid sales have dropped by 100K over last 2 years of PU era to 400K units, and continue to drop. This while electrics are taking off and Tesla sells equivalent of US top selling car models in less than a week. Yet no one questions this doomed path F1 selected of trying to push these hybrids upon an audience less and less interested in attending races or watching F1 on TV. I guess they are not as excited about efficiency of F1 or fuel savings in F1, yet they are prepared to embrace efficiency in their lives. Interestingly, it’s not the kind of hybrid efficiency F1 is pushing.
Gosh if you people keep treating Seebee like that he’ll take his keyboard and go straight back to JA on F1…..
Lucky old James
My thoughts exactly…
Glad to see the depth of thought and contribution here from the Sheep and Peter on this post. At least Joe’s boots are clean. Is anything I said not valid Peter? Exactly.