The threat to motor racing
#1
Posted 08 February 2007 - 13:03
I imagine many of us have been just waiting for the greenies/do gooders/politically correct to break cover and start to lobby for nasty, fuel guzzling motor sport to be banished to the history books. Certainly, from the noises Max Mosely has been making in recent times, it appears that that scenario is very much something that engages his mind.
I can't really recall much in the way of strong public utterances of that sort in this part of the world (South Australia) but today, on the ABC radio, one of our more 'loose cannon' politicians (Sandra Kanck, Leader of the Democrats in South Australia) felt able to slam motor racing quite directly.
A stouch is currently going on regarding a proposal to build a permanent Grandstand for both motor racing and horse racing in the Adelaide Parklands. This will be very close to the old Grand Prix track and the current V8 Supercar track.
The ABC Local Radio morning program ran a piece on the proposal today (listen at www.abc.net.au/adelaide/morning/audio.htm if you wish), Ms. Kanck rang in and amongst other things felt obliged to say, "With all we know about greenhouse gas emissions, what we know about peak oil, car racing has got to go down the tube like the Roman spectacle of feeding people to the lions."
I've always had lined up in the back of the head some ripost which queries (at least in the context of this wide brown land) the amount of fuel that is caused to be consumed by all the fans, players, and assorted camp followers travelling hither and thither (across cities in their cars and across the continent by air) during the course of an AFL (Australian Football League) season, should I be belaboured on the subject by someone aware of my interest in motor racing.
Apart from wondering whether others from around the world have noticed such as Ms. Kanck feeling confident to raise their heads above the parapet, I do raise this topic as one which I fear leaves motor racing potentially vulnerable to populist and simplistic attack.
Advertisement
#2
Posted 08 February 2007 - 13:14
BAN FISHING!
#3
Posted 08 February 2007 - 13:31
If we assume that one of these flights is only ferrying tourists (i.e. non-productive as opposed to business) to Disneyland you can say that your leisure interest is pretty 'green'.
Unfortunately 'reason' and 'argument' never quite gets into the equation when dealing with shrill people. I always wonder how Livingstone and his acolytes gets away with their war on SUV/4x4's.
If their mission is reduced fuel burning they should attack ALL vehicles with a consumption over their moral threshold. That means the S-class's, 7-series and XK's of this world. In their world a Suzuki Ignis or Honda HR-V is more evil.
#4
Posted 08 February 2007 - 13:42
….being all green and enviro. friendly, not adding to the worlds carbon debt…like so many of the do gooders......
........must just keep burning that methanol.
#5
Posted 08 February 2007 - 13:44
#6
Posted 08 February 2007 - 13:47
Originally posted by Vanwall
I suspect this thread might be kicked off TNF ......
....like the Roman spectacle of feeding people to the lions."....
This does have a place at TNF when you mention the Romans ;)
But in a sense you answer your question in your question. Weren't the Roman emperors convinced that the people should have bread and circuses (Panem et circenses) to keep them satisfied?
I guess a good example was with the ING presentation to sponsor Renault F1 in 2007. A day later criticism came from a part of ING, a special environment development fund I believe: "Why did ING embark in such a environment threatening activity?"
At the same time some people publicly announced they had stopped their accounts. Basically short sightness of most of them. They do not understand that what are the real reasons behind their sponsorship.
Of course we have to preserve the environment, but simply wanting to stop something that is there for 100 years makes me ask, what are all those fans going to do?
Run around in their cars?
On the other hand I feel it as a missed chance that F1 rulemakers in the 80s and 90s did not also introduce environmental improvement rules for engine makers, next to what they did do: introduce safety rules. It would have made F1 stronger, also for the old role as test environment for production cars.
#7
Posted 08 February 2007 - 14:55
The wooden-top didn't bother to work out the amount of greenhouse gasses pumped into the atmosphere by the electricity generating companies!
The power to run one 80 watt bulb for one hour generates more greenhouse gasses than a car run for the same period!
#8
Posted 08 February 2007 - 15:58
#9
Posted 08 February 2007 - 16:05
Originally posted by Arjan de Roos
............... I feel it as a missed chance that F1 rulemakers in the 80s and 90s did not also introduce environmental improvement rules for engine makers, next to what they did do: introduce safety rules. It would have made F1 stronger, also for the old role as test environment for production cars.
I do agree with that.
#10
Posted 08 February 2007 - 16:53
#11
Posted 08 February 2007 - 17:02
#12
Posted 08 February 2007 - 17:02
#13
Posted 08 February 2007 - 17:10
Originally posted by Mallory Dan
Cribbing from another site for a second, I always thought Old John Webb was onto something with F Talbot... He was, like Martin Peters, a man ahead of his time.
I would like to see a championship devoted to cars running on Bio-Diesel. If they used the one-make format it would appear to the average punter just like any of the plethora of tin-top series and would provide something to point to as a true Green Credential!
#14
Posted 08 February 2007 - 17:14
Now Bio-ethanol made from wheat etc is much more akin to petrol and has recentlly been used in BTCC cars and in Rallying as well as the John McNeil Le Mans project cars in recent years.
It does not carry as much energy as petrol so the MPG is worse so you need to carry more fuel and have more stops. The ACO would not allow bigger fuel tanks for the ethanol cars , so I believe it will not run again this year . Diesel fuel carries more energy uses less made fewer stops which was a major contribution to Audi's 2006 LM victory.
I think a trend generally to much smaller, simpler, lighter racing cars with much smaller capacity engines right across the whole motor sport spectrum would be a breath of fresh air generally and provide a whole new level of technical interest as well as reducing costs to competitors push research on new methods and techniques and place motor sport in the eye of the layman as a research tool for cleaner road vehicles that would translate in to road cars using less energy for the same work.
When you think a GP car can only manage at present 4 mpg there is some scope there for improvement.
Just pushing those wings through the air at 200mph is said to use about half the current engine power...................perhaps we could start by banning all aerofoil wing sections on all cars , which would made the cars require a far higher skill level to drive on the limit and hence be a better driver test and give spectators a far more thrilling visual experience.
#15
Posted 08 February 2007 - 17:36
Originally posted by David M. Kane
Max is right on this one. I think he's headed down the right path for a change.
didn't McLaren come up with some re-generative energy experiment some time before Max ?
I feel Max only thinks an idea is OK if he comes up with it !
#16
Posted 08 February 2007 - 17:39
#17
Posted 08 February 2007 - 17:41
#18
Posted 08 February 2007 - 17:46
#19
Posted 08 February 2007 - 18:16
The IRL has switched to ethanol for this year. The late Paul Dana was instrumental in forming a coalition promoting ethanol as a viable alternative fuel.Originally posted by f1steveuk
I will now go off half cocked! I cannot remember , but I think it's the IRL, (but it may be Champcars!) are running on a wood based fuel this year? I don't know what the emmisions are from this, as your still burning something, but it has to be a way forward?
Advertisement
#20
Posted 08 February 2007 - 18:17
Originally posted by Barry Boor
It was once stated the the fishermen (anglers) of Britain burn far more fuel getting to and from their respective rivers/lakes/ponds/sea than all that used in the pursuit of motor sport.
BAN FISHING!
Ah, Barry - I see you are against cold blood sports
#21
Posted 08 February 2007 - 18:27
If we assume that one of these flights is only ferrying tourists (i.e. non-productive as opposed to business) to Disneyland you can say that your leisure interest is pretty 'green'.
. [/QUOTE]
Oooohhhh! Let's not go there, please. All the business those 'only tourists' generate? Go down the recreation takes second place to business route and you end up agreeing that trucks and commercial vehicles have more right to the roads than cars only ferrying tourists to... a day at the zoo, visitng family for Sunday lunch... going to environmentally disastrous pursuits such as motor racing.
Unfortunately 'reason' and 'argument' never quite gets into the equation when dealing with shrill people. I always wonder how Livingstone and his acolytes gets away with their war on SUV/4x4's.
[/QUOTE]
Is not that war just part of Mayor Ken's ongoing class war?
#22
Posted 08 February 2007 - 18:28
Originally posted by FLB
The IRL has switched to ethanol for this year. The late Paul Dana was instrumental in forming a coalition promoting ethanol as a viable alternative fuel.
Ethanol, I knew I'd remember when someone told me the answer!! Thanks. So what are the by-products of burning this in an internal combustion engine? Whatever, it makes sense to start trying something other than fossil fuels.
#23
Posted 08 February 2007 - 18:32
Totally agree.I think a trend generally to much smaller, simpler, lighter racing cars with much smaller capacity engines right across the whole motor sport spectrum would be a breath of fresh air generally and provide a whole new level of technical interest as well as reducing costs to competitors push research on new methods and techniques and place motor sport in the eye of the layman as a research tool for cleaner road vehicles that would translate in to road cars using less energy for the same work.
The threat in the UK is not from the green lobby but from the nimbys who live near, or at least vaguely near, the circuits.
-------------------
Welsh Motor Sport History
#24
Posted 08 February 2007 - 19:21
Saddly for the wrong reason;political gain.
The U.S. government pays huge subsidies to corn growers to not grow corn,
or if they are growing corn, over pays for the product and stores it or dumps
it on off shore markets. America is not unique in this action as most European
nations offer "spiffs" to farmers as well.
Corn can be made into ethanol but unfortunatly it takes more energy to
make it than the finished product produces.
The problem being;corn needs to be dried before it can be transformed and that
is done with natural gas or , heavan forbid, electricity.
There are lots of starter crops (sugar beats,switch grass) but they won't assist
the corn farmers.
Back in the '70's there was an energy crisis, and our highway speed limits were reduced from
70mph to 55mph. Some poorly informed American senator or congressman suggested that the Indy 500 be stopped because it wasted gas. No doubt he slunk (?) away red faced but then again,
how did all the race fans get to the track?
Is not ethanol quite corrosive ?
#25
Posted 08 February 2007 - 19:27
Originally posted by Stephen W
The power to run one 80 watt bulb for one hour generates more greenhouse gasses than a car run for the same period!
I'd love to see a proof of that!
Even the "weakest" Citoen 2CV had an output of 6,600 watt.
#26
Posted 08 February 2007 - 19:59
Very much the same (to within a few per cent) as those from burning fossil fuels. The only reason such 'bio-fuels' are considered greener is because the carbon dioxide they generate is being 'recycled', as it was removed from the atmosphere when the wheat, or sugar beet, etc was grown. Carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels is effectively adding to the world total, as it was last part of the atmosphere millions of years ago.Originally posted by f1steveuk
So what are the by-products of burning this in an internal combustion engine?
#27
Posted 08 February 2007 - 20:08
Originally posted by jcbc3
I always wonder how Livingstone and his acolytes gets away with their war on SUV/4x4's.
Well he has been elected twice and he'll probably win a third term, so we have to assume that the London electorate like his policies. He "gets away" with it because Londoners approve of it.
See also the congestion charge.
John
#28
Posted 08 February 2007 - 20:45
It is an easy target and appeasement will not really help in the long run. Will it make the italian judge think it is not a useless pursuit etc. At the same time we have to adapt to more modern mores. The FIA sees these trends and is acting ahead of the game.
Personally, I think that the biggest risk is an accident involving spectators of Le Mans scale. Then the general public will join in with the usual malcontents. Then we will be in real trouble. I also think the FIA knows this - hence all the changes that most of us do not like.
#29
Posted 08 February 2007 - 21:05
Is it possible in some way to make methanol burn with a coloured flame? I have always thought it a horrific safety risk that you cannot see it burning, having watched a driver dancing around out of his car for no apparent reason.
MM is thinking about the right things -can't believe he will come to the right conclusion -never does-
but it is the symbolic nature of the beast that needs changing.
If we could offer up F1 as the sacrificial cow (its crap anyway) and make it all green coloured, perhaps the sandle wearers and tree huggers will leave the rest of us alone to enjoy racing Mustangs, Galaxies and the like.
#30
Posted 08 February 2007 - 22:29
Originally posted by Huw Jadvantich
If anyone is thinking about using the 'fans going to a football match' repost, better not to, when you think of the jumbo jets and trucks full of motor racing employees, parts,media and spectators travelling to be involved in their 'sport'.
Is it possible in some way to make methanol burn with a coloured flame?
About ten years ago we ran in the Interserie, which had quite a few Indycars running (on methanol).
Apparently, the Interserie made the methanol runners add a little bit of petrol to their fuel, in order to detect a fuel fire more readily. And it did work....in practice, one of the Lola-Buicks had a small fire in the pits right next to us, and the fire was pretty easy to spot. So yes, that one is not a problem.
#31
Posted 08 February 2007 - 22:42
As a fuel its lower calorific value means you have to push a lot into the engine hence the phenominal fuel consumption of the Alfettas. On the other hand that much liquid evaporating cools the engine hence the problemsthat Vanwall, BRM and Maserati had in1958 with the switch to petrol.
This is a bit technical for me and I'm sure that if i've got it wrong someone will put me straight.
By the way, what fuel is used by the fifties cars in historic racing? Cars like Cooper-Bristols, Maserati 250fs, Connaughts, etc and the prewar Bugattis and ERAs as well. No leaded petrol, presumably no benzene (carcinogenic) and no nitro-methane, toluene or other exotic brews.
#32
Posted 09 February 2007 - 09:07
Originally posted by D-Type
By the way, what fuel is used by the fifties cars in historic racing? Cars like Cooper-Bristols, Maserati 250fs, Connaughts, etc and the prewar Bugattis and ERAs as well. No leaded petrol, presumably no benzene (carcinogenic) and no nitro-methane, toluene or other exotic brews.
I've not got the recipe handy, but something like Methanol with a bit of water & toluene added for a Connaught.
Some have used nitro-methane recently - not popular with people who are following who say it is rather unpleasant.
#33
Posted 09 February 2007 - 10:10
#34
Posted 09 February 2007 - 14:05
Having alt fuels or fuel economy formulae might do something too.
Plus, having looked into building an electric car, to get the best current batteries, you need a F1 sized budget....
#35
Posted 09 February 2007 - 16:13
[B]
Is it possible in some way to make methanol burn with a coloured flame? I have always thought it a horrific safety risk that you cannot see it burning, having watched a driver dancing around out of his car for no apparent reason.QUOTE]
IIRC that is what caused the death of John Foulston when he went into the (Club?Abbey??)banking at Silverstone in his Indycar. It was a free testing day and the others passing just thought he was sorting out his belts or had a bang on the head or was waiting for the recovery truck. So I was told by a FFordsetr and his sponsor father who were there that day. Poor John was simply consumed in the invisible methanol flames.
Roger Lund
#36
Posted 09 February 2007 - 16:16
Originally posted by D-Type
By the way, what fuel is used by the fifties cars in historic racing? Cars like Cooper-Bristols, Maserati 250fs, Connaughts, etc and the prewar Bugattis and ERAs as well. No leaded petrol, presumably no benzene (carcinogenic) and no nitro-methane, toluene or other exotic brews. [/B]
Angela Cherrett's excellent book on the 8C Alfas (Veloce Publ.) gives quites a bit of coverage to the various brews used in operiod.
RL
#37
Posted 09 February 2007 - 17:59
Originally posted by Huw Jadvantich
Is it possible in some way to make methanol burn with a coloured flame? I have always thought it a horrific safety risk that you cannot see it burning, having watched a driver dancing around out of his car for no apparent reason.
Apparently if you add a bit of something like petrol (e.g. that burns with coloured flames) then the flames become visible.
#38
Posted 09 February 2007 - 18:33
#39
Posted 09 February 2007 - 22:07
Originally posted by pkenny
.....I think that the biggest risk is an accident involving spectators of Le Mans scale. Then the general public will join in with the usual malcontents. Then we will be in real trouble. I also think the FIA knows this - hence all the changes that most of us do not like.
Rallying will surely produce this one day...
And on that day we'll find out how many people remember Le Mans 1955 and the Mille Miglia 1957 and Monza 1961 and many others.
Advertisement
#40
Posted 09 February 2007 - 23:49
TARGA TASMANIA, due to the stupidity of the organisers and C.A.M.S.Originally posted by Ray Bell
Rallying will surely produce this one day...
And on that day we'll find out how many people remember Le Mans 1955 and the Mille Miglia 1957 and Monza 1961 and many others.
#41
Posted 12 February 2007 - 04:08
The internal combustion engine is efectively just over one hundred years old. What do you think the racing engineers of 1907 would think of a current F1 engine? Max is definetly on the right track. Asis the Audi and Peugeot diesels, and God forgive me, the IRL
#42
Posted 12 February 2007 - 11:17
In urban road use those few vehicles fitted with similar devices are in service clogging up badly within 6 weeks.
Other than CO2 and water vapour, when fully warm a modern current petrol passenger car emits very little else these days. Diesels are still a very long way behind this. The UK MOT test is only an optical smoke density test does not measure gases and the pass threshold is very easy.
It is easy only to consider CO 2 and ignore other factors vital to human health. Current taxation regime drives more and more people in to diesels.
Fleet News said:
A WARNING has been sounded over potential problems with new-generation diesel engines.
Leasing company Lex says drivers in urban areas are at risk of the engines’ Exhaust Particulate Filters (EPF) clogging up. Some of the firm’s drivers are having to visit a dealership every six weeks to have their filters unblocked. The problem occurs predominantly in traffic at low speed, it adds.
Lex says fleets can alleviate the potential problem by following manufacturer operating recommendations.
According to manufacturer guidelines, an EPF-equipped diesel engine is likely to clog up unless it is operated at 50mph for at least 20 minutes, or covers 50 miles at motorway speeds at least once every couple of weeks.
These driving conditions effectively burn off the soot particles that the EPF has been equipped to prevent from escaping into the atmosphere.
Drivers should look out for a warning light that notifies them that the EPF is blocked and that the car needs a run out at 50mph for a prolonged period.
Lex maintenance manager Jamie Wiseman said: ‘If a driver knows their car is going to spend most of its time in urban areas at low speed, then it’s worth avoiding a car with an EPF.’
#43
Posted 12 February 2007 - 12:31
What bothers me is silent race cars and cars chock full of driver aids. Remember the situation at Monza in 2006 when the courts treatened to shut down the racing there? Race cars will have to be muzzled into silence to be "socially responsible" and they will have to run with traction control, anti-lock brakes, yaw control, stability control, active cruise control (to help avoid collisions), and all kinds of "safety" provisions to be "socially responsible."
Now lets talk about how they should look...
#44
Posted 12 February 2007 - 12:52
Thank god for the Revival.
#45
Posted 12 February 2007 - 13:14
In 1993 The Le Mans XJ220 cars inc Coulthards class winner were disqualified because the catalysts had been disabled. The BTCC has had them for many years. I think it would be responsible to have them on GP cars now.
#46
Posted 12 February 2007 - 16:52
#47
Posted 12 February 2007 - 17:14
The racing CAT's you refer to are very different animals to the CAT's fitted to road cars, they are very inefficient at doing what a CAT does on a road car, good for PR environmentalism though in this spin led non scientific world we now live in.
#48
Posted 12 February 2007 - 17:14
I like the way it says you have to keep an oil heater under your drum of chicken droppings burning to keep it at 80 deg C to produce the methane gas !!
#49
Posted 12 February 2007 - 17:34
Originally posted by johnwilliamdavies
Totally agree.
The threat in the UK is not from the green lobby but from the nimbys who live near, or at least vaguely near, the circuits.
-------------------
Welsh Motor Sport History
Indeed - particularly (and most gallingly) from people who've moved to areas where well-established circuits have existed for years.
I grew up maybe half a mile from Aintree. It was sheer bloody torture at school just over the road on Tuesday afternoons, because I could recognise the sound of virtually every car testing!
Motor racing will never die. What will 'kill' it for the mainstream is when F1 finally disappears up its own fundament and becomes the modern equivalent of J-class yacht racing, circa 2010-2012. The rest of us might have to look a bit harder to find our own particular perversions covered in the mainstream media, but I think they'll still be out there for the foreseeable future.
#50
Posted 12 February 2007 - 17:45
Originally posted by petefenelon
Motor racing will never die. What will 'kill' it for the mainstream is when F1 finally disappears up its own fundament and becomes the modern equivalent of J-class yacht racing, circa 2010-2012. The rest of us might have to look a bit harder to find our own particular perversions covered in the mainstream media, but I think they'll still be out there for the foreseeable future.
Maybe Pete, but will there be any NOISE?
It is getting harder week by week to allow any decent running even somewhere like Snetterton mid-week in the middle of nowhere, due to NIMBYs. The whispering silent Audis at Le Mans are showing how uninspiring motor racing could become. The noise is the passion!