Jump to content


Photo

The threat to motor racing


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1 Gary Davies

Gary Davies
  • Member

  • 1,992 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 08 February 2007 - 13:03

I suspect this thread might be kicked off TNF to The Paddock Club or somewhere but I at least wanted to start it here.

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 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,872 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 08 February 2007 - 13:14

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!

#3 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 5,119 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 08 February 2007 - 13:31

Ask Nigel this week has the nugget about a 747 burning more fuel on one trans atlantic flight than the whole of the GP circus in a year.

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 rbm

rbm
  • Member

  • 293 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 08 February 2007 - 13:42

I like to think whilst I'm on the track in the Cooper - I'm doing my bit …

….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 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,534 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 08 February 2007 - 13:44

That's why Max keeps talking about stored energy and suchlike. I imagine he must spend a lot of time schmoozing governments about how green the motor industry is. Probably a good deal more important to his role than F1.

#6 Arjan de Roos

Arjan de Roos
  • Member

  • 2,089 posts
  • Joined: July 02

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 Stephen W

Stephen W
  • Member

  • 11,774 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 08 February 2007 - 14:55

Just recently there was a phone in on my local BBC news programme (Look North West) and some dozy individual actually suggested that the Toyota Prius that their 'partner drove' and the 'electric buggy' that they drove were environmentally superior to petrol or diesel cars!

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!

:drunk:

#8 David M. Kane

David M. Kane
  • Member

  • 5,400 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 08 February 2007 - 15:58

Max is right on this one. I think he's headed down the right path for a change.

#9 RTH

RTH
  • Member

  • 5,737 posts
  • Joined: January 03

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 PCC

PCC
  • Member

  • 478 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 08 February 2007 - 16:53

The debate about the future of racing - which I suspect is inevitable - will not be because of the sport's actual consumption of fuel, which, as has been pointed out, is not statistically significant. It will be because of the sport's symbolic status as the pinnacle of automotive use and technology. The sport has enjoyed enormous commercial success over the years thanks to that status. Perhaps the time will soon come when it needs to re-invent itself, and turn that status into an asset once again. Maybe David is right - maybe MM is on the right track.

#11 RTH

RTH
  • Member

  • 5,737 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 08 February 2007 - 17:02

Remember the late great Keith Duckworth's fuel flow limiter valve from 25 years ago !

#12 Mallory Dan

Mallory Dan
  • Member

  • 2,683 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 08 February 2007 - 17:02

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.

#13 Stephen W

Stephen W
  • Member

  • 11,774 posts
  • Joined: December 04

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!

:wave:

#14 RTH

RTH
  • Member

  • 5,737 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 08 February 2007 - 17:14

That was the methanol car , wasn't it Dan . Which is quite nasty stuff really it will attack certain metals , burns with a clear flame you cannot see and is very expensive.

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 macoran

macoran
  • Member

  • 3,989 posts
  • Joined: August 05

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 RAP

RAP
  • Member

  • 572 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 08 February 2007 - 17:39

Whatever the arithmetic (and "experts" rarely seem to agree), we live in a world where political decisions are driven by headlines, soundbites and preconceptions. Some years ago I talked to a Director of my employer about motor racing spomsorship - he was dead againgst it because "its a waste of petrol". Arguement by me simple met "but thats not what people THINK". Motor racing has to be seem to be part of the solution, not the problem if it is to survive.

#17 Andrew Kitson

Andrew Kitson
  • Member

  • 2,535 posts
  • Joined: July 03

Posted 08 February 2007 - 17:41

Despite the fact our sport uses a relatively tiny amount of fuel ( as Barry points out, fishermen use more - or those who travel to Premiership football matches ), it is the perception that we 'waste' fuel that could endanger the sport, especially in the lower ranks. It is hard enough for young drivers to attract sponsors now with the ridiculously high budgets required these days ( £400K+ for F3 for a start ), how will it be when companies dare not get involved, in taking the risk in sponsoring a sport that is (wrongly) perceived on the outside as harming our planet? The FIA and other governing bodies must make our sport 'green' and get the message across that we are helping the automotive world in general.

#18 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,201 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 08 February 2007 - 17:46

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? I wanted to built, and got a long way to completing a diesel (rape seed oil actually) v8 engined Westfield. I wanted to use synthetic oil, man made rubber tyres etc etc, as man made and green as possible. This was about 1987/8 for the Willhire 24 hour race. Then we were told, "you'll never be allowed to enter it, Diesel is too slippery". That was the FIA!!

#19 FLB

FLB
  • Member

  • 1,929 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 08 February 2007 - 18:16

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?

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.

Advertisement

#20 Mal9444

Mal9444
  • Member

  • 1,230 posts
  • Joined: December 05

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 Mal9444

Mal9444
  • Member

  • 1,230 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 08 February 2007 - 18:27

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jcbc3

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 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,201 posts
  • Joined: June 04

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 johnwilliamdavies

johnwilliamdavies
  • Member

  • 192 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 08 February 2007 - 18:32

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.

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

#24 slucas

slucas
  • Member

  • 74 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 08 February 2007 - 19:21

Ethanol is being pushed in America as the "green" fuel of the near future.
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 Geoff E

Geoff E
  • Member

  • 1,211 posts
  • Joined: February 03

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 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Member

  • 14,559 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 08 February 2007 - 19:59

Originally posted by f1steveuk
So what are the by-products of burning this in an internal combustion engine?

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.

#27 JohnS

JohnS
  • Member

  • 295 posts
  • Joined: June 02

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 pkenny

pkenny
  • Member

  • 198 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 08 February 2007 - 20:45

We must remember that motorsport is an affront to many people - people taking risks with their (and others lives) going round the same piece of road in the pursuit of a tin cup. That we all are incredibly passionate about it will not matter. The assault is from a mixture of nimbys, environmentalists, freedom haters, noise complaints...

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 Huw Jadvantich

Huw Jadvantich
  • Member

  • 602 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 08 February 2007 - 21:05

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? 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 doc knutsen

doc knutsen
  • Member

  • 481 posts
  • Joined: May 03

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 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,086 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 08 February 2007 - 22:42

The main safety advantage of methanol or ethanol is that being alcohols they dissolve in water rather than float on it like petrol. So, if you have a fire it can be put out with water - no foams or anything needed.

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 Peter Morley

Peter Morley
  • Member

  • 1,910 posts
  • Joined: October 02

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 Andrew Kitson

Andrew Kitson
  • Member

  • 2,535 posts
  • Joined: July 03

Posted 09 February 2007 - 10:10

Yes, just like at a drag race meeting. Nitro-Methane stings the eyes if you are close enough when they fire one up, but totally harmless. It gives off tear gas.

#34 canon1753

canon1753
  • Member

  • 619 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 09 February 2007 - 14:05

On the US side of the pond, there is a new organization which will run battery/fuel cell cars in the "hydrogen 500" in 2009. That might help "environmentalize" racing enough to keep it going.
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.... :eek:

#35 bradbury west

bradbury west
  • Member

  • 4,607 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 09 February 2007 - 16:13

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Huw Jadvantich
[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 bradbury west

bradbury west
  • Member

  • 4,607 posts
  • Joined: June 02

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 Peter Morley

Peter Morley
  • Member

  • 1,910 posts
  • Joined: October 02

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 Jim Thurman

Jim Thurman
  • Member

  • 4,180 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 09 February 2007 - 18:33

"We have met the enemy, and he is us." - Pogo Possum

#39 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 54,120 posts
  • Joined: December 99

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 cosworth bdg

cosworth bdg
  • Member

  • 1,350 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 09 February 2007 - 23:49

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.

TARGA TASMANIA, due to the stupidity of the organisers and C.A.M.S. :down: :down:

#41 ralt76

ralt76
  • New Member

  • 4 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 12 February 2007 - 04:08

I think the point is that by getting racing engineering involved, you are allowing the best mechanical minds on the planet involved. By opening up to new technology you're getting back to allowng racing engineering to advance the breed. For the last 20 years, is it not true that racing has been trying restrict technology? By opening the door to alternative fuels, and power sources, you will see a marked increase in the technology, leading to more efficent power plants both environmentaly and performance wise.
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 RTH

RTH
  • Member

  • 5,737 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 12 February 2007 - 11:17

There is still a very big issue with what comes out of the tailpipe of a diesel engine, in terms of cancer causing particulate and toxic chemicals . Audi ran collosal particulate traps at Le Mans so that the US audience would not see any visible smoke.
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 uffen

uffen
  • Member

  • 912 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 12 February 2007 - 12:31

Max used words like "socially responsible" or something to that effect. It has been decided that this means "lower greenhouse gases." This is the tip of the iceberg. Many, many people dislike cars and racing them is the insult added to the injury. Racing cars will need catalytic converters (nothing wrong with that), run on ethanol or other renewable (blended with 15% gasoline to maintain a link to road cars) and there's not too much to worry about there either.

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 Andrew Kitson

Andrew Kitson
  • Member

  • 2,535 posts
  • Joined: July 03

Posted 12 February 2007 - 12:52

...or look for an interest in something else as the good old days are never coming back.
Thank god for the Revival.

#45 RTH

RTH
  • Member

  • 5,737 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 12 February 2007 - 13:14

Catalytic converters have already been mandatory on many forms of racing for a great many years.
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 Rosemayer

Rosemayer
  • Member

  • 1,253 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 12 February 2007 - 16:52

It seems someone had an answer years ago.

journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/methane_bate.html

#47 JSF

JSF
  • Member

  • 676 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 12 February 2007 - 17:14

The wholesale adoption of CAT's was a massive backwards step for engine efficiency, we would have been far better off following the lean burn technology route than relying on an inefficient exhaust gas converter that ensures you use more fuel, takes longer than most short journeys to start to operate and uses precious and poisonous metals as it's core component.

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 RTH

RTH
  • Member

  • 5,737 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 12 February 2007 - 17:14

True enough there is nothing new under the sun. Compession ignition engines ran on peanut oil over 100 years ago . Almost everything has been tried before !

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 petefenelon

petefenelon
  • Member

  • 4,815 posts
  • Joined: August 02

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 Andrew Kitson

Andrew Kitson
  • Member

  • 2,535 posts
  • Joined: July 03

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!