F1 to go Zero Carbon Emissions

https://newatlas.com...eutral-by-2030/+

Sounds like tokenism? As one comment points out, they could offset the entire 256,551 tonnes of CO2 for an outlay of about 0.1% of their budget.

Of interest only 0.7% is emitted by the cars. About 70% is logistics of moving the circus.

Edited by gruntguru, 18 November 2019 - 02:28.

Yes, it is tokenism but what with "flightshaming" and F- e they have to be seen to do something and , rationally, they have the money to fund effective carbon offsetting. 

I actually think the FIA and Liberty have missed trick here. With the logistics being 70% or more of the CO2 footprint a ruthless cut back in number of trucks, and aircraft size would have looked very positive and also forced a big cost reduction on the teams.

A lot of it is about perception and F1 is not on a winner right now.

Speaking of perception I can easily wind up my classic car finds by telling them if Classics keep leaving shows belching out raw hydrocarbons into every bodies face they will become socially unacceptable soon. I point out most classic engines from 60's / 70's have later versions with emisions controls and they will probably have to accept installing that  emissions gear to be able to drive on roads one day.

Understand racing for what it is, entertainment. Every contrived bit of bullshit F1 comes up with reduces its interest for me.

One positive from the article is I now have an instant retort for anyone that criticises F1 as a "dirty" sport - "emissions from the cars is only 0.7% of the carbon footprint" and that doesn't include spectators etc transport to the events.

IC does not equal carbon footprint. Run the engine on leftovers from woodwork, farmwaste aka. E96 and you should be ok.

"E100" (E96) in F1 would be interesting. More interesting would perhaps have been some hybrid fuel with some alcohol and some food waste oil to lower the octane number. Not sure if they even can be combined mind you.

I want the sport to get simpler so any amount of simplification is welcome for me. Less trucks included. Artificially degrading tyres might be first if i had to choose. We are probably far away from running natural rubber tyres i think.

Edited by MatsNorway, 11 December 2019 - 13:04.

One positive from the article is I now have an instant retort for anyone that criticises F1 as a "dirty" sport - "emissions from the cars is only 0.7% of the carbon footprint" and that doesn't include spectators etc transport to the events.

I'm not sure that's the snappy comeback you think it is 

A MotoGP journalist recently queried the carbon footprint of the *millions* of TV viewers tuning in, power draw, etc, etc al. But that's a tricky analysis because you'd have to separate out fans who are only watching TV to watch their racing vs those that would be watching another program if it wasn't on or didn't exist, blah blah. 

You could probably argue that F1 is saving Co2 as most people do not drive a car or pollute in other ways during the event. Ticket prices are probably high enough to cost the same as an cheap airplane ticket..

Yeah i know. Not the strongest argument.

Understand racing for what it is, entertainment. Every contrived bit of bullshit F1 comes up with reduces its interest for me.

Correct, F1 is contrived motorsport. Has nothing to do with real motoring or motorsport. They save a litre of fuel and we here the 'green' credentials. But have used thousands of litres on the dyno to achieve that gain.

That is without moving the circus around the world. Put all the teams, bossed down in the cheap and crowded seats, a small fuel saving there.

Less b/s and bling at the tracks, less staff alone would be a saving. Say limit staff to 5 a car, not it seems 105!