I think that's McLaren specifically, not F1 as a whole
The FIA has been planting trees for years to offset the CO2 emissions. That isn't sexy enough, though.
Posted 24 March 2014 - 21:59
I think that's McLaren specifically, not F1 as a whole
The FIA has been planting trees for years to offset the CO2 emissions. That isn't sexy enough, though.
Advertisement
Posted 24 March 2014 - 22:27
The FIA has been planting trees for years to offset the CO2 emissions. That isn't sexy enough, though.
They must plant tens of thousands of trees a year then.
A 747 dumps about 220 tons of CO2 in 7 hours of flight.
A broad leaf tree will absorb about 1 ton of CO2 in 100 years.
Posted 25 March 2014 - 03:16
The point is that the stature of F1 was not built on the noise of the V10's, it was not built on the spectacle.
It was built on the genius of the Cooper Climax, a totally unspectacular car which blew away all the spectacular machinery of the time. It was built on the magic of the Lotus 78/79, again not loud cars at all, but by some incomprehensible dark art disappeared off into the distance.
Then came turbos and active suspension, unheard of voodoo at the time. Then came the aerodynamic wizardry and mind blowing rpm of the V10's. But they are not magic any more and you can't keep flogging a dead horse.
F1 has been living off the spectacle for a while and it can only take you so far. You need genuine substance to back it up or it becomes a caricature of itself and drifts into obsolescence.
Posted 25 March 2014 - 03:36
Terman, RisiI,PAYR, et al, I really am not pushing this because of new engines, electronics or any of that. I'm OK with it so far.
It's not even really about F1.
I'm saying this because huge corporations, that are truly the ones that tear up the earth by the square mile, and consume massive amounts of limited energy are huge hypocrites when it come to painting themselves 'green'.
It's a sham, and we're guilty for believing it actually *is* environmentally sound, or even practical in the 'real' world.
C'mon, a worldwide show of private jets, yachts, casinos, Monaco and no taxes et cetera, et cetera.
Brute horsepower put to the ground with fantastic engineering, and drivers.
It's freakin' auto racing, about the stupidest, most pointless way to use energy there is.
Edited by whitewaterMkII, 25 March 2014 - 03:39.
Posted 25 March 2014 - 03:45
Anyone who thinks most fans, myself included, are going to say 'well the cars have as much impact as a frozen sausage, but look at the MPG....ooh', is sadly mistaken.
Posted 25 March 2014 - 03:52
It's a sham, and we're guilty for believing it actually *is* environmentally sound, or even practical in the 'real' world.
It's freakin' auto racing, about the stupidest, most pointless way to use energy there is.
Posted 25 March 2014 - 04:17
Unlike posting on the internet..
Touche
Posted 25 March 2014 - 11:53
That seems a bit of a stretch. I don't think anyone is suggesting exchanging spectacle (whatever that is, as I suspect to you it doesn't necessitate good racing) for mpg or silence. What's being suggested is an F1 that can be used to hone road relevent technologies, can be used to market repmobiles and shopping carts, can be an actual challenge for the designers, and can provide good, competitive racing on tgrack. Honing, marketing and challenging all have their place, but mean little if the competition aspect is too muted. Which thankfully so far it hasn't been.
If anything all these compaints about the aesthetics and noises show that F1 has been taken far, far from what it was and "should be". Spectacle in exchange for technical excellence and driving brilliance. Perhaps it's time to bring a little go back into play to bolster the overblown obsession with the show.
Posted 25 March 2014 - 21:48
They must plant tens of thousands of trees a year then.
A 747 dumps about 220 tons of CO2 in 7 hours of flight.
A broad leaf tree will absorb about 1 ton of CO2 in 100 years.
I think it was just the racing, not all the associated emissions. Not sure, though.