Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

News from the Real World: F1 has green credentials


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#51 uffen

uffen
  • Member

  • 893 posts
  • Joined: April 04

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

#52 whitewaterMkII

whitewaterMkII
  • Member

  • 5,266 posts
  • Joined: November 05

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.



#53 wepmob2000

wepmob2000
  • Member

  • 709 posts
  • Joined: October 08

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.


True, F1 wasn't built on the V10's, but it was certainly built on spectacle, starting with those spectacular death-traps of the 1920's and 30's, culminating in the monstrous Auto-Unions, and resuming with those type of cars after the war. IIRC, the 1.5l era wasn't that popular, because the speeds and spectacle weren't greater than the junior formulae, hence F1 moved back to more powerful cars.

The cars of the 1970's were certainly spectacular, they're plenty loud, look awesome and very difficult to drive, and like most F1 cars, had zero relevance to anything beyond Indycars and sponsor associations, which really is the story of F1.

I don't disagree that change in F1 is needed, it is, the frozen V8 formula was stale, the racing poor, etc. But I think an F1 that believes relevance matters more than spectacle is going to die very quickly. People have enough 'relevance' Monday-Friday, a GP is escapism and F1 is escapism, and being an irrelevant exercise for the last 60 years hasn't done it much harm. 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.

#54 whitewaterMkII

whitewaterMkII
  • Member

  • 5,266 posts
  • Joined: November 05

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.


#55 Shambolic

Shambolic
  • Member

  • 444 posts
  • Joined: May 11

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.


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.

#56 Shambolic

Shambolic
  • Member

  • 444 posts
  • Joined: May 11

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.


I think there are potential benefits to pushing for more efficient engines. And to be honest even if they have no real world importance I personally feel F1 and other top flight motor racing ought to be maximising efficiency as surely that's the idea of non spec racing - To get the most out of what you've got to work with. Of course F1 is only making a token gesture with regargds to fuel efficiency (open wheels and wing based aero do not slip through the air overly easily) but it's better than no gesture at all.


It's freakin' auto racing, about the stupidest, most pointless way to use energy there is.


Unlike posting on the internet..

#57 whitewaterMkII

whitewaterMkII
  • Member

  • 5,266 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 25 March 2014 - 04:17


Unlike posting on the internet..

Touche

:)



#58 wepmob2000

wepmob2000
  • Member

  • 709 posts
  • Joined: October 08

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.


No, it certainly doesn't mean good racing, we haven't really had that in F1 for 20 years or more, I used to tune in to Indycar for that. And while the Australian GP last week was OK by F1 standards, it certainly wasn't a classic.

However in exchange for the tedium of the 'racing', where you usually have to look far down the grid to see much action, we did have the sheer impressiveness of F1 cars at full chat, something that was unrivalled in motorsport. Once that's gone, and once again we have a series dominated by one team with little actual racing, just what is left? The shock and awe helped cover up the lack of actual racing.

#59 uffen

uffen
  • Member

  • 893 posts
  • Joined: April 04

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.