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.