75 replies to this topic

[Burtros]

No, I hate it.

 

The engines are not powerful enough. They make no noise. They are vastly over complicated. One manufufacturer dominanates completely resulting in a predictable championship and total domination of race weekends. The fuel limit sucks. The lack of an equalisation mechanisim regarding performamnce for the remanining manufacturers means the situation is cemented in place.

 

I dont care abut green technology in something that Im looking to for entertainment and excitement. In fact, the two just dont go together unless its a music festival and the shocking state of the competitive order prooves that.

[Requiem84]

I'm afraid your hate is based on a lot of incorrect facts/assumptions.

[Tapz63]

Nothing wrong with different opinions though, is there? No need to "lol" someone

Lol.

[superden]

In F1 terms, it's not worth wasting my time moaning about it. The regs are what they are and I can do nothing to change that. Either I a) accept it, or b) stop watching.

From a road car perspective however, I most definitely still have a choice. For now, I can choose a fossil burning, planet hating V8 over a soulless Prius or Zoe and, for as long as I can, I will. That's a personal preference, for a multitude of reasons, none of which I can be bothered to share on here.

As for the earlier comment that 'new cars are better than cars from 1980' ... well no, not necessarily, though that's a comment you would expect from a younger demographic. Better is subjective, depending on your requirements or desires. For example, I'd take a 1980 Golf GTI over a 2015 model any day of the week. For me, the 1980 example is a 'better' match to my demands as a driver and is therefore, a better car. Better to drive, better to maintain, better to insure.

Better for the planet too? Probably, yes.

Edited by superden, 01 November 2015 - 14:26.

[Afterburner]

The 'green' line is complete propaganda. Acting like having efficient engines in the back of the cars is going to improve the world's emissions scenario when they're globe-trotting in an armada of 747s is similar to acting like drinking nutritional supplements is going to improve your health when you have terminal cancer.

 

The other tenet of the green agenda in these regulations, the 'road-relevance for all' line, is also propaganda. There are only two manufacturers who are designing competent engines in this formula, and neither of them manufacture cars which the average consumer will be able to afford. The company with the largest market share is building the most embarrassing engine. Ferrari and Mercedes won't even let Red Bull touch one of their engines; there's no chance they're letting their technology get anywhere outside their companies. There is no large-scale road-relevance here whatsoever, and if any participating company truly wanted road-relevant technology, they'd simply transfer the astronomical budget required for their F1 program directly over to R&D for their road cars and get comparatively instant results.

 

The 'green' rules, like any marketing effort, are at their simplest a deceptive effort to entice consumers, constructed by the manufacturers for the manufacturers in an effort to cement their place at the top of the sport because they're fully aware that no organisation smaller than a global manufacturer has the ability or the resources to compete with them on this playing field. They are raping F1 and turning it into their own personal marketing exercise because it's the easiest way to advertise to a global audience of 500+ million viewers and reach out to a demographic typically the most resistant to accepting hybrid technology: the racing fan.

 

You can buy the BS all you want, just remember that the sport exists in its current state because of greedy people in boardrooms who see you and your sport as a number and a tool, respectively. The motive is the same as always: money.

[uffen]

I mean that F1 having green powerplants isn't going to have an impact on the world. We want green road cars because there's so gosh darn many of them that if you can make them cleaner and more fuel efficient, it *will* make a difference. If F1 wants to be green in a meaningful way, it needs to contribute by actually using the sport as a testbed for the technology. To develop and improve it, so that the technology can trickle down to road cars, where being green actually matters in the big picture.

But instead, the FIA are slowly closing down development of the powerplants, meaning there is no real way to achieve this progress. It is just being green to say you are, which is really just a token gesture. I get why they do it. They need to control costs and whatnot, but I dont think it's the right approach to the 'green' thing at all.

Also, if the FIA were serious they would create a new F1 and ask that every manufacturer making more than, say, 20,000 vehicles annually had to participate and the resulting tech improvements must "trickle down."

[Ben1445]

I completely support it. 

 

I just wish it was more groundbreaking to be honest. 

[Fatgadget]

The 'green' line is complete propaganda. Acting like having efficient engines in the back of the cars is going to improve the world's emissions scenario when they're globe-trotting in an armada of 747s is similar to acting like drinking nutritional supplements is going to improve your health when you have terminal cancer.

The other tenet of the green agenda in these regulations, the 'road-relevance for all' line, is also propaganda. There are only two manufacturers who are designing competent engines in this formula, and neither of them manufacture cars which the average consumer will be able to afford. The company with the largest market share is building the most embarrassing engine. Ferrari and Mercedes won't even let Red Bull touch one of their engines; there's no chance they're letting their technology get anywhere outside their companies. There is no large-scale road-relevance here whatsoever, and if any participating company truly wanted road-relevant technology, they'd simply transfer the astronomical budget required for their F1 program directly over to R&D for their road cars and get comparatively instant results.

The 'green' rules, like any marketing effort, are at their simplest a deceptive effort to entice consumers, constructed by the manufacturers for the manufacturers in an effort to cement their place at the top of the sport because they're fully aware that no organisation smaller than a global manufacturer has the ability or the resources to compete with them on this playing field. They are raping F1 and turning it into their own personal marketing exercise because it's the easiest way to advertise to a global audience of 500+ million viewers and reach out to a demographic typically the most resistant to accepting hybrid technology: the racing fan.

You can buy the BS all you want, just remember that the sport exists in its current state because of greedy people in boardrooms who see you and your sport as a number and a tool, respectively. The motive is the same as always: money.

Jeremy Clarkson is that you?!...Sorry I just couldnt resist!

[Okyo]

The 'green' line is complete propaganda. Acting like having efficient engines in the back of the cars is going to improve the world's emissions scenario when they're globe-trotting in an armada of 747s is similar to acting like drinking nutritional supplements is going to improve your health when you have terminal cancer.

 

So basically, if it won't stop global warming at it's tracks, it's not worth doing it? Noone is saying that it's a green sport lol. I mean, it's freakin' racing. Even if those cars were run on world hunger, it wouldn't be a green sport, as airplanes would be still needed to carry the luggage and there's no way around it. 

The aim here is NOT to stop this sports existance in the world of gas emissions, as that would only be done by deleting this sport all together. It's done to send a message that we're entering a new era. That you can have good racing while NOT running a loud V12 gas guzzler. That you can be quick, if not quicker with a car that uses 60% less fuel. It's a moving stage towards a future without fossil fuel, be it not in the next decades. 

It's called doing something, rather than nothing. Be it an advertising act for the corporations or whatever, it's still better than nothing.

Edited by Okyo, 01 November 2015 - 15:11.

[Ben1445]

Acting like having efficient engines in the back of the cars is going to improve the world's emissions scenario when they're globe-trotting in an armada of 747s is similar to acting like drinking nutritional supplements is going to improve your health when you have terminal cancer.

 

I get that, but the same argument I use with Formula E is that if there was a way to get them around in a environmentally friendly way (and I would like to think in F1's case too) they would. But that capability isn't there yet... 

(the above post by Okyo makes more sense than me.) 

 

I think they should allow them more open development or it can come across as just a marketing gimmick, I'l admit.

Edited by Ben1445, 01 November 2015 - 15:15.

[Seanspeed]

^^Well,with that attitude white van man next door shouldnt bother replacing his diesel Ford Transit with an electric Nissan varnege or whatever it is or I shouldn't bother with solar panels on my roof because all that will make bugger all difference...Thats essentially what you are saying - right?

Not at all. What we want is to have white van man convert to hybrid/electric power and we want people to use things like use solar panels. That is the goal here. To reach the end users, where significant impacts can be made. But we need to improve the technology to make it more effective and cheaper, to make it more appealing for people to make these switches in their lives. We need companies willing to invest money into developing and iterating on these technologies and F1 is a *fantastic* place for that to happen. But the way things are, it's not very conducive to that.

So while I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm not exactly going to stand up and applaud them for it. Not when they waste FAR more fossil fuels and whatnot simply by traveling around everywhere.

[Fatgadget]

Yes it is. Everything is fine.

I like to think you are being sarcastic..are you?

Either way,fact remains that F1 has gone through evolutions and revolutions re engines.Neither me nor you Im sure were around during most of those changes but here we are...

[Afterburner]

So basically, if it won't stop global warming at it's tracks, it's not worth doing it? Noone is saying that it's a green sport lol. I mean, it's freakin' racing. Even if those cars were run on world hunger, it wouldn't be a green sport, as airplanes would be still needed to carry the luggage and there's no way around it. 

The aim here is NOT to stop this sports existance in the world of gas emissions, as that would only be done by deleting this sport all together. It's done to send a message that we're entering a new era. That you can have good racing while NOT running a loud V12 gas guzzler. That you can be quick, if not quicker with a car that uses 60% less fuel. It's a moving stage towards a future without fossil fuel, be it not in the next decades. 

It's called doing something, rather than nothing. Be it an advertising act for the corporations or whatever, it's still better than nothing.

In principle, I agree with the message. In practice, this particular message is costing $50+ million per team per year to compete, $500+ million to win (at a loss), and is prohibitively expensive to any newcomers (note: that's on power units alone). That's not better than nothing, it's actually worse. It's morally sound but economically senseless and, most ironically, the opposite of sustainable.

 

And you're right: it's not a green sport, it's freakin' racing. The sooner we get back to embracing that the better off we'll be. Tourgott had it spot-on.

Edited by Afterburner, 01 November 2015 - 17:09.

[Tourgott]

I like to think you are being sarcastic..are you?

 

No, why should I? F1 is on its peak. Highest ratings, highest track attendance, satisfied viewers, great sound, a lot of drivers fighting for the championship, fair competition, financial healthy teams, most manufactures in the sport ever, ... Everything is absolutely fine.

 

Hybrid Formula is a great success for everybody.

[HP]

If F1 wants to be green they should fit catalytic converters to the cars.   

 

So no, the entire idea is preposterous given that one flight of the FOM transport 747 uses more fuel and produces more emissions than the entire season of F1 racing.

Max Mosley while still in office claimed that the FIA is emission neutral. Dunno if that included FOM or not, but apparently they were compensating

[Okyo]

In principle, I agree with the message. In practice, this particular message is costing $50+ million per team per year to compete, $500+ million to win (at a loss), and is prohibitively expensive to any newcomers (note: that's on power units alone). That's not better than nothing, it's actually worse. It's morally sound but economically senseless and, most ironically, the opposite of sustainable.

 

And you're right: it's not a green sport, it's freakin' racing. The sooner we get back to embracing that the better off we'll be. Tourgott had it spot-on.

From an economical stand point, yeah i agree. It doesn't help costs, but by far, it's not what makes this sport costly. Pre-2014 we had overspending and even if we didn't introduce these new technologies, we would still have overspending. It's the usual big team-small team matter that we've had for quite some time. Teams aren't able to get their act together in talks of budget caps, aero facility usage, simulators and so on. Through out this sports history, we had multiple moments like these ones, when new technology was introduced, and teams had to spend loads of money for a year or two, to get the handle on it. Be it aero, engines, TC, diffusers, floors, you name it. The new PU is just another new technology, that demands spending for a few years and stabilizes eventually. Just recently, FIA did put up an engine cap of 12m.

Blaming large costs of the sport and struggles of the smaller teams on introduction of greener technology is just not true. It's the very essence of innovation in this sport that has made it expensive for decades. And, of course, the sad fact, that teams aren't able to decide on budget caps. If it ain't something they're spending on, heck, they'll find something else as they always did.

Edited by Okyo, 01 November 2015 - 17:49.

[chipmcdonald]

I am pro-conservation and the environment.  I'd love to own a Tesla if I could afford it.  As it stands I drive a car with the same displacement of an F1 engine (!!!???) and get over 30 mpg.   I recycle, because I don't like landfills.  I don't mind catalytic converters on road cars, as a mass they are a horrible contributor to pollution.  Factories doling out tons of CO2 and pollutants up stacks I'm against, filters are good.  Nobody should be dumping chemicals into the environment, waterways or otherwise.

 

In the grand scheme of things, F1 racing is an inconsequential part of "pollution".  It's intellectually vapid to try to connect it, and then provide a mediocre, stagnant hybrid spec as some sort of propaganda. 

 

It serves zero purpose.

 

If Formula One was the electric equivalent of what it was with IC engines up until the late 90's - in other words, all about a COMPETITION FOR ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE - I'd be all for that.  In reality, that's what it should be, and I suggested as much a decade ago here to much consternation and "electric will never, ever be in F1!!!".

 

If the electric side was left wide open - I'd maybe even be for that.  I wouldn't be able to complain.

 

BUT, the present engines and rules are effectively static, it's lip service to an invisible byline that is a lie. 

 

There are 50 different ways you could make F1 a competition involving fuel economy that would actually BE a competition.  This is not, this is just throwing money at the last 5% of a convoluted lie. 

 

 Car racing is an inherent anachronism, and should accept that and work on being entertaining.  Obviously it's rubbish that the rules are "for manufacturers to stay in F1", and with the ridiculous token system and non-bespoke parts required, it's just bs for the lowest common denominator brain to accept as some sort of attempt at being "green". 

 

Make a car that gets Prius-like economy AND F1 performance.  THAT is "Formula One".  Not just putting a turbo and a battery/electric motor on a V6.

 

PEOPLE DRIVE TO RACES IN CARS THAT ARE MORE SOPHISTICATED HYBRID AND ELECTRIC.
 

Complicated efficiency does not equal road car relevance or being green.  A turbine powered car would be more efficient and simpler, "green because they're more efficient" is not automatically valid except to a dullard!

 

In fact, I posit it is morally corrupt what they're doing, if it's not a scheme to actually keep manufacturers out:  spending that much money on something under the premise of being "green" and basically having nothing special to show for it is morally bereft.  There are people dying of starvation on the planet, the Arctic is melting, and they're throwing money at something you can't see and does nothing new in reality!

 

Meanwhile, I see lithium-air batteries are poised at a revolutionary breakthrough: why not make the teams dump their money on new battery technology?  High temperature super conducting technology?  New ultra-lightweight carbon nano composites?   ROAD CAR RELEVANT carbon fiber assembly line production?

 

That's the kind of progressive technology I want to see in F1, not 1985 turbo technology masquerading as "green".  When the rules make Tesla want to get into F1, get back to me on that "green" bit.

Edited by chipmcdonald, 01 November 2015 - 17:51.

[SpartanChas]

I'd rather have V12s with proper manual gearboxes and no traction control or ABS, to sort the men from the boys. But that's never really going to happen so I'm happy with hybrids as they are a lot more relevant. And F1 has much bigger problems (cough, CVC, cough) than power units.

[chipmcdonald]

There are only two ways F1 can honestly claim to be "green":

 

when they get better MPG than a road car, or;

 

when they use road car parts that contribute to the efficiency.

 

Otherwise, it's a lie. Mercedes make IC based cars with big engines, so does Ferrari.  Complete nonsense.   It's all about making it too costly for a Hyundai or Cosworth to jump in an actually be competitive.  That's all.

[Andrew Hope]

I support green F1 in the sense I burn one down before every race. I like to be mentally identical to how I want the top speeds: higher than the last chopper out of 'Nam.

[Fastcake]

In principle, I agree with the message. In practice, this particular message is costing $50+ million per team per year to compete, $500+ million to win (at a loss), and is prohibitively expensive to any newcomers (note: that's on power units alone). That's not better than nothing, it's actually worse. It's morally sound but economically senseless and, most ironically, the opposite of sustainable.

 

And you're right: it's not a green sport, it's freakin' racing. The sooner we get back to embracing that the better off we'll be. Tourgott had it spot-on.

 

And what costs are directly attributable to the hybrid engines, rather than regulatory failure? The big manufacturers were already spending hundreds of millions, which was only temporarily lowered by the development freeze, and had locked any independents out decades ago. The teams are paying more principally because the V8s were cost capped - if they weren't the cost would have been closer to the $20m odd they're paying today. The millions they had to spend on car redesign to accommodate the new engines would have occurred regardless of what engine formula replaced the V8s, and everyone knows the engines had to change eventually.

 

Your arguments should be targeted towards Bernie and CVC, for sucking money out of the sport, and the likes of Ferrari, Red Bull and recently Mercedes who have blocked any sensible cost control measures. The technology itself has very little to do with the structural problems of the sport.

[LuckyStrike1]

Green is not necessarily a favorite color of mine. 

[HP]

Not at all. What we want is to have white van man convert to hybrid/electric power and we want people to use things like use solar panels. That is the goal here. To reach the end users, where significant impacts can be made. But we need to improve the technology to make it more effective and cheaper, to make it more appealing for people to make these switches in their lives. We need companies willing to invest money into developing and iterating on these technologies and F1 is a *fantastic* place for that to happen. But the way things are, it's not very conducive to that.

So while I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm not exactly going to stand up and applaud them for it. Not when they waste FAR more fossil fuels and whatnot simply by traveling around everywhere.

The only real solution is that people become less mobile. You are aware that some of the materials to build all those hybrid/electric cars and solar panels are getting scarce already.

 

Based on that racing is meaningless to the real world as it always was, but I propose to keep the racing because

a) it's for many people nice entertainment, especially when living in a world that might become less mobile soon.

b) As a historic reminder of the past-time of previous generations.

c) As a funny reminder how mankind can rationalize and defend activities that don't have any relation with every day activities. What was the last F1 innovation that made it from racetrack to everyday cars? I think  it was Gary Anderson who claimed  there was nothing he could think of... An F1 car compared to an everyday car is about the same as a fighter jet to a small personal plane. The planes might be even closer related to each other because they both require wings.

 

So IMO the term green Formula 1 is a placebo. I would also argue since the interest in F1 is declining, the green Formula 1 is a big flop. But then conventional engines have been around for more than 100 years, so I might give the 'new' technologies some time. Otherwise however I think electric car should be relics from yesteryear too, because electricity is at least as long in use as the first Benz and Ford vehicles. One could say the green technology is 100 years behind schedule. That doesn't bode well for it's future. Now what invention will lead us into the future? Í don't know exactly, but I have an idea. I'm pretty sure it won't be built in a purpose built garage for F1 cars, no matter how big that garage to build F1 cars is (After all they build only a handful of cars per year). And by that time noone talks about green technology anymore. At least the current definition will be seen as misleading as it is (the placebo effect).

 

IMO the term green technology should be reserved for any technology that is based on photo-synthesis. Imagine a car that actually converts CO2 into clean air? Now that would be news. The racing might be not so exciting however, so we might just stay with what we have so that the everyday cars of the future have enough CO2 to work with. And best F1 would not have to pretend to be green when it's not, and never really will be. (The pollution from the manufacturing processes is much higher than their actual racing on track!)

Edited by HP, 01 November 2015 - 18:13.

[Afterburner]

And what costs are directly attributable to the hybrid engines, rather than regulatory failure? The big manufacturers were already spending hundreds of millions, which was only temporarily lowered by the development freeze, and had locked any independents out decades ago. The teams are paying more principally because the V8s were cost capped - if they weren't the cost would have been closer to the $20m odd they're paying today. The millions they had to spend on car redesign to accommodate the new engines would have occurred regardless of what engine formula replaced the V8s, and everyone knows the engines had to change eventually.

 

Your arguments should be targeted towards Bernie and CVC, for sucking money out of the sport, and the likes of Ferrari, Red Bull and recently Mercedes who have blocked any sensible cost control measures. The technology itself has very little to do with the structural problems of the sport.

Engine/power unit costs are higher than they've ever been. This does not mean that manufacturers are reallocating spending from other areas to develop power units, they're simply spending more on power units. Mercedes spent $500+ million on their power unit alone by the start of the 2014 season. They have been operating at a loss since then. If Mercedes is operating at a loss, what hope does anyone else have?

 

To assume that a non-hybrid formula would've cost as much is rather ill-founded, as well. If they'd specified that the new formula had to be on the level of Chevy crate motors in terms of simplicity it would've cost nowhere near as much and there are several firms capable of producing such an engine because there's no overhead required in terms of R&D to become competitive--it's a path well-trodden already.

 

Teams that can't afford to spend $500+ million on a competitive engine have no chance of winning, simple as that. Costs have always been an issue, but the difference between now and the V8 era is that in the V8 era, you could win if you weren't a manufacturer--Red Bull proved that. When even Red Bull, with all its millions, is utterly helpless in this formula, it should be blatantly obvious that the formula is the biggest problem.

 

I don't know how to say it any clearer than this: if you gave a single small team all of the F1 prize fund, estimated at around $600 million, they would have enough money to develop an infrastructure capable of competing with that of Mercedes. That's the entire prize fund--including all of the special historical benefits given to Ferrari, Red Bull, et al--allocated to one team. The revenue distribution, while admittedly a problem, is not the primary issue here.

Edited by Afterburner, 01 November 2015 - 18:27.

[turssi]

The pollution from the manufacturing processes is much higher than their actual racing on track!

How do you count and track this in detail?

Not just about F1 cars but goods in general and their life cycle emissions?

[Fastcake]

Engine/power unit costs are higher than they've ever been. This does not mean that manufacturers are reallocating spending from other areas to develop power units, they're simply spending more on power units. Mercedes spent $500+ million on their power unit alone by the start of the 2014 season. They have been operating at a loss since then. If Mercedes is operating at a loss, what hope does anyone else have?

Everyone making engines is operating at a loss, and have been for years. A new engine formula was always going to see a large investment from the manufacturers, whether you told them to create a V6T hybrid or a NA V12. The only way of avoiding that is trying to impose a budget cap on engine development or neither changing the engine formula, which obviously isn't viable.

 

To assume that a non-hybrid formula would've cost as much is rather ill-founded, as well. If they'd specified that the new formula had to be on the level of Chevy crate motors in terms of simplicity it would've cost nowhere near as much and there are several firms capable of producing such an engine because there's no overhead required in terms of R&D to become competitive--it's a path well-trodden already.

It's no assumption. We know what the cost of previous engine formula have been, and we know that the V8s were only kept to $10m (I might be confusing currencies here, but we know the maximum cost has roughly doubled) thanks to a cost cap and frozen development. With competitive development, even if restricted, and no maximum price the V8s would have cost in the region of the current units. And these were basic 10 year old units originally developed from cut down V10s. I don't see anyone coming up with a cheaper formula than that.

 

The "true" price of an engine supply in F1 will always be expensive no matter the formula, unless the regulations directly restrict the price.

 

Teams that can't afford to spend $500+ million on a competitive engine have no chance of winning, simple as that. Costs have always been an issue, but the difference between now and the V8 era is that in the V8 era, you could win if you weren't a manufacturer--Red Bull proved that. When even Red Bull, with all its millions, is utterly helpless in this formula, it should be blatantly obvious that the formula is the biggest problem.

 

It was like that before the roughly equalised V8s. The works teams always had the advantage over their customers in the modern era. Red Bull are in fact a works team with Renault, but simply lucked out with a poor engine choice. If the engines aren't equalised, someone has to lose. Really it's the non-Red Bull customer teams who have a problem, but again this is a reversion to pre-V8 form, not a new consequence of the formula.

 

You could attempt to work around this by enforcing parity between works and customers, or equalising engine performance, which again is a regulatory rather than technical solution.

 

I don't know how to say it any clearer than this: if you gave a single small team all of the F1 prize fund, estimated at around $600 million, they would have enough money to develop an infrastructure capable of competing with that of Mercedes. That's the entire prize fund--including all of the special historical benefits given to Ferrari, Red Bull, et al--allocated to one team. The revenue distribution, while admittedly a problem, is not the primary issue here.

 

What are you trying to argue? Are we expecting the small teams to make engines? If they had a similar spec V6 to Mercedes, and there was a sensible budget cap and revenue distribution in place, they'll be more competitive.