86 replies to this topic

[Timstr11]

Originally posted by DVtriple6
I lost a bit of interest when they used V8 instead of V10 and I don't even know what happens if they start to use stuff like Hydrogen or *shudders* bio diesel...

Please don't ruin it anymore, if anything.. strip out all electronics that doesn't make the car go.

Stripping out electronics will only make the cars slower. They removed TC and electronic engine breaking control and people are still not happy.

[HDonaldCapps]

Originally posted by Atreiu
I want fast cars that demand the highest skills to be piloted and raced, and that bring true excitement to the fans. Whatever power they use doesn't bother me.

Well, that leaves formula one out....

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by DVtriple6
[B]I lost a bit of interest when they used V8 instead of V10 and I don't even know what happens if they start to use stuff like Hydrogen or *shudders* bio diesel...

[B]

Those two cylinders have made all the difference...

[HDonaldCapps]

If formula one is the pinnacle of racing and the cutting edge of technology, it has long puzzled me that it stills sticks to incremental nudges of 19th Century technologies rather than the supposed proving ground for the manufacturers. That is, of course, a complete myth, since the public relations departments foot the vast majority of the costs involved in racing in formula one.

Sketch out a set of safety-related regulations and then set some sort of criteria for race distances and/or durations. Then make the formula itself relate to an emissions level or some other such criteria and see what happens. Hydrogen, hybrids, bio-mass, whatever.

Ooops, sorry, I forgot that formula one is the pinnacle of racing and automotive technology only in a figurative (PR) sense, not a literal one.

[Eastern]

By sheer coincidence I read an interesting article today about dimethyl ether. I am not at all versed in chemistry, but I understand that it can be used as a combustible fuel, it is close to ethanol, and that it produces almost zero emissions.

The interesting bit is this: although it can be produced from biomass, it can also be produced from coal. The Chinese, who have around 5,700 million tons of smelly sulphurous coal, started construction in 2006 of a plant with a capacity of 3 million tons/year of DME. With crude approaching $150/barrel, that looks like a pretty shrewd investment based on 2006 prices.

So there is a green challenge for F1.

[DOHC]

Originally posted by CaptnMark


Mount some speakers.

There's a calculation in the Technical forum, the amount of energy required is not that big, compared to moving the car.

I did that calculation. The trouble is, the acoustic energy is small, but it requires astronomical quantities of (electrical) energy to produce it. The loss is typically 99.9%... Producing sound is, in that respect, very expensive. Especially for HiFi nerds.

[AyePirate]

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps


Well, that leaves formula one out....

Who does it leave in?

I don't think F1 has ever been a pinnacle of technology. Some of the pre-war GP cars might have fit that description.. but F1?

It seems like a no-holds barred formula would be nice in theory but doomed to the same fate as Can-Am.

Motor racing is entertainment any resemblance to cutting edge technology living or dead is merely coincidental ;)

[HDonaldCapps]

Originally posted by AyePirate
Who does it leave in?

I don't think F1 has ever been a pinnacle of technology. Some of the pre-war GP cars might have fit that description.. but F1?

It seems like a no-holds barred formula would be nice in theory but doomed to the same fate as Can-Am.

Motor racing is entertainment any resemblance to cutting edge technology living or dead is merely coincidental;)

Thank goodness, someone understands.....!!!

[Spunout]

Geez. I thought motor racing exists to promote technology, cure cancer and bring world peace. You guys are making it sound like it´s all about noisy spectacle and selling shopping trolleys to little old ladies.

[saudoso]

I really think moving into any kind of alternate fuel is a waste of time. Speaking of hydrogen, how is that obtained?

Because if you are to use hydrogen from electrolysis from oil generated electricity it is a big waste of time and energy. It's like plugging you electric car to a wall outlet. It just changes the location where the oil is burnt.

What I would see as a good solution is free engine regs and a declining fuel amount per mile over the years. Starting from a big cut. That would make a difference.

[Kimi Heineken +_+]

Originally posted by Mika Mika
I hate the "Make F1 Green" thing... They are raceing cars....

2

[kamix]

Change consumer vehicles over to hydrogen and stockpile all the petroleum in the world for future F1 use!

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by kamix
Change consumer vehicles over to hydrogen and stockpile all the petroleum in the world for future F1 use!

We must start saving fuel so that we can have F1 and fire cars in operation for the next 10000 years.

[Rubens Hakkamacher]

I'll say it again:


F1 should be frozen back to V10's as an anachronistic sport.

The future is electric. It's already happening. It's not going to be hydrogen or any other "fuel" based system. It's a fallacy for F1 to go that route.

[DOHC]

Originally posted by Rubens Hakkamacher
The future is electric. It's already happening. It's not going to be hydrogen or any other "fuel" based system. It's a fallacy for F1 to go that route.

Naturally. F1 wouldn't exist if it weren't for the totally hysterical noise of racing cars. Silent electric cars that would only woosh by and occasionally make some screeching tire noise just won't be the same.

[OfficeLinebacker]

Originally posted by SeanValen
Power all the better to use another sources


Hey when Rubber comes in short supply, and wheels have to be made of plastic or something, then that'll effect the racing.

But I'm a green person, f1 will be around as long as the human race is around, so we gotta do our part.

Petrol/Oil are in the past this century, everyone is worried about climate this and that, at least when we watch f1, it can be seen as setting a example, all the that money they shed on building cars, now it's about ethically building cars for the next generation

Ethical F1 racing....it wouldn't be F1 then!

[OfficeLinebacker]

Originally posted by Atreiu
I want fast cars that demand the highest skills to be piloted and raced, and that bring true excitement to the fans. Whatever power they use doesn't bother me.

What about Rally Group B?

I agree that the cars were getting beyond effective human control, yet just having read that Balestre was responsible for the ban, the whole episode loses credibility.

God I hate that man, and I wasn't even a fan during his tenure. Is he even still alive? He's like the Nicolae Ceauşescu of the FIA.

[Ross Stonefeld]

You hate a man that you had no experience with and don't even know that he died recently?

[Josta]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
You hate a man that you had no experience with and don't even know that he died recently?

Indeed, the most ironic thing is that he died 3 days before the Mosley story broke. The poor bastard never even got to see his old opponent squirm.

[OfficeLinebacker]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
You hate a man that you had no experience with and don't even know that he died recently?

Is that a rhetorical question?

[HDonaldCapps]

Originally posted by Rubens Hakkamacher
I'll say it again:


F1 should be frozen back to V10's as an anachronistic sport.

The future is electric. It's already happening. It's not going to be hydrogen or any other "fuel" based system. It's a fallacy for F1 to go that route.

Let's return to cars such as the Masertai 250/F or the Ferrari Dino 246/256 or the Vanwall or the BRM Type 25 or the Lotus Type 16 if we are going to have an anachronistic sport -- that way it would at least be interesting and entertaining....

[LostProphet]

Originally posted by kar
Reading this sort of made me wonder:

http://news.bbc.co.u...ess/7456141.stm

Why doesn't F1 turn to hydrogen?

One of the things that really confuses me is if F1 is to go green, why not do it properly? I think the general gist behind KERS is actually fairly sound, just the implementation a bit wack. But why stop at KERS? Why not make a real statement and tackle the biggest problem - fossil fuels?

I'm not sure of the absolute specifics or even technical feasibility of powering an F1 class car by hydrogen, but wouldn't that be technical challenge worth setting teams?

Wouldn't that _really_ appeal to the manufacturers? Wouldn't it be cool to return back to the turbo style years where fuel conservation was a key skill and do away with the need for fuel stops. Force teams to trade off power vs efficiency?

I must admit to being somewhat taken with the recent Lemans race. Never been a huge fan of it but over the weekend I couldn't tear myself away from Eurosport. While F1 should never become an 'endurance' series, it would be good to again see, at least in fuel terms, a return to the conundrum of speed vs efficiency.

And wouldn't it be good for all that money that F1 teams stuff into the ether went to help change perceptions of, and better yet, the technology of, road going zero emission cars?

Supposedly, the Honda FCX cars cost $1M USD to produce, due to the precious metals required in the make-up of the fuel converting units.

For F1 teams, that sort of expenditure probably wouldn't be an issue ... I imagine that with a huge green push like that, even the smaller teams would get enough funding from sponsors.

However, I don't know what R&D would be required, a team like Honda would be ready to go immediately, whereas teams like Ferrari probably wouldn't have the first clue where to start.

[Andy Donovan]

Originally posted by OfficeLinebacker
Is that a rhetorical question?

Who's to decide what's a rhetorical question?

*gets coat*

[NineOneSeven]

We need to change our reliance on oil. Our cars and other habits are killing the planet and people. We must develop a clean solution and motorsport needs to reflect that change.

I own a few cars big block V8's, flat and inline 6's... I love the petrol engine; however I also recognise the need to change what we are doing to our planet.

I too am hoping for a fuel that enables us to drive our cars with virtually zero emissions.

Personally I thought hydrogen was the answer. Then I realised we required masses of electricity to create it in quantity. Also it’s been suggested that water vapour is a cause of green house gases.
Perhaps nuclear energy could allow us to create the hydrogen without burning coal or other fossil fuels. Perhaps a massive push for solar, wind and water power will enable us to create the electricity required.
With regards to the water vapour; Couldn’t a exchanger or converter be devised that condenses the vapour to emit water rather than the vapour?

I don’t know… something must be done.

[Andy Donovan]

Originally posted by LostProphet
However, I don't know what R&D would be required, a team like Honda would be ready to go immediately, whereas teams like Ferrari probably wouldn't have the first clue where to start.

I imagine the teams with no previous fuel cell experience would just buy it in to get them started, similar to Williams' purchase of that flywheel company. Most of the manufacturer's current schemes are at least part-run by external companies already:
Plug Power/Honda
Ballard/Ford/Mercedes

[HP]

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps



Let's return to cars such as the Masertai 250/F or the Ferrari Dino 246/256 or the Vanwall or the BRM Type 25 or the Lotus Type 16 if we are going to have an anachronistic sport -- that way it would at least be interesting and entertaining....

Car racing of any type will always be an anachronistic sport. But I'd say that if F1 reversed to those car you suggest, the corporate guys, the PR brigade, TV, and not the least, insure companies will make sure that even those races become a rather dull thing.

A trip to the next race track, at a non race date seems to me the only real cure. I'll even find some like minded people that are just there for the fun. Might be even up for a some sort of race with some of them. Much better than any car race that is being shown on TV.

[David M. Kane]

F1 is suppose to be the fastest and the most innovative; then why not take off the wraps and make anything green legal? Right now the regs are too tight and innovation has been crushed. Let the great minds dream! That would REALLY give the car manufacturers some meaningful motivation. Let the competitive creative juices flow. Then our our bored leaders wouldn't have fill their hallow lives with silly sex games.

[HP]

Originally posted by NineOneSeven
We need to change our reliance on oil. Our cars and other habits are killing the planet and people. We must develop a clean solution and motorsport needs to reflect that change.

I own a few cars big block V8's, flat and inline 6's... I love the petrol engine; however I also recognise the need to change what we are doing to our planet.

I too am hoping for a fuel that enables us to drive our cars with virtually zero emissions.

Personally I thought hydrogen was the answer. Then I realised we required masses of electricity to create it in quantity. Also it’s been suggested that water vapour is a cause of green house gases.
Perhaps nuclear energy could allow us to create the hydrogen without burning coal or other fossil fuels. Perhaps a massive push for solar, wind and water power will enable us to create the electricity required.
With regards to the water vapour; Couldn’t a exchanger or converter be devised that condenses the vapour to emit water rather than the vapour?

I don’t know… something must be done.

If we do nothing, we run out of oil anyway. Considering all the procuts based on oil, that will be interesting indeed. Habits will change drastically. But if we inquire a bit more, we'll find that if we stop our cars today, there is still too much pollution being produced anyway.

Also consider this. Approx. 20% of the earths population uses approx. 80% of all it's daily available resources. That's not sustainable any longer with countries like India and China having sharp raising demands on resources.

[HP]

Originally posted by David M. Kane
F1 is suppose to be the fastest and the most innovative; then why not take off the wraps and make anything green legal? Right now the regs are too tight and innovation has been crushed. Let the great minds dream! That would REALLY give the car manufacturers some meaningful motivation. Let the competitive creative juices flow.

To be more competetive will always require more resources. Do you know of any racing car related R&D that is eco friendly in the real sense? I don't.

Anyhow, I do think that the term 'green' in connection with technological innovation is often worth as much as are those 'green' labeled batteries, that can't even power my digital camera.

[Alapan]

Why limit fuel type in the first place. All energy sources have a "potential energy" value attached. Limit that in the rules, and allow cars to be powered in whatever way the team wants.

[DOHC]

Too simple!

[NineOneSeven]

Originally posted by HP
If we do nothing, we run out of oil anyway. Considering all the procuts based on oil, that will be interesting indeed. Habits will change drastically. But if we inquire a bit more, we'll find that if we stop our cars today, there is still too much pollution being produced anyway.

Also consider this. Approx. 20% of the earths population uses approx. 80% of all it's daily available resources. That's not sustainable any longer with countries like India and China having sharp raising demands on resources.

Sorry.. are you saying there is nothing we can do? Or that we shouldn't even try?

[CaptnMark]

Originally posted by LostProphet

For F1 teams, that sort of expenditure probably wouldn't be an issue ... I imagine that with a huge green push like that, even the smaller teams would get enough funding from sponsors.

For F1, fuel cells are a stupid idea. If going hydrogen, just use a Hydrogen ICE, like BMW's. It's a dumb idea for road cars,
but for F1 it would work without changing everything.

For road cars, electric seems to be the best way right now.

[Eastern]

Ethanol burns clean, coal burns dirty: but ethanol can be extracted from coal. Double no-brainer, return agricultural land to food, and convert a dirty fuel to a clean one. And the world has shitloads of coal. Enough to last us well into a future that can be powered by other means, such as warp drives.

As for hydrogen, it can now be generated - albeit for now in small quantities - using wind-powered electricity. The hydrogen cells store the power that is needed when the wind stops blowing, and when it blows too much, they provide power for heating and automotive use. Wind-generators have always been criticised as inefficient for these reasons, so there is another double no-brainer. There is an interesting article on the subject here

As to whether F1 should be on the front lines of these developments, that is another question. I personally believe that F1 can never be politically correct by its nature, so a "green" F1 is not high on my list of realistic expectations.

[Terry Walker]

Motor racing started out as a marketing exercise for selling cars.

When the day comes that we are all running electric cars (or going by electric tram), though, don't expect electric F1 racing cars. We stopped getting about on or behind horses a century ago, but they're still racing horses. These days motor racing is about entertainment, while horse racing is about gambling.

As for F1 racing being forever - nuts. Another 50 years, tops.

[Gilles12]

I read an article somewhere that said Montoya eats enough burgers to generate sufficient methane to power his winnebago

Now that's green

[ehagar]

Originally posted by Eastern
Ethanol burns clean, coal burns dirty: but ethanol can be extracted from coal. Double no-brainer, return agricultural land to food, and convert a dirty fuel to a clean one. And the world has shitloads of coal. Enough to last us well into a future that can be powered by other means, such as warp drives.

I wouldn't be so sure ethanol and coal would be any better. There is an compelling arguement that ethanol is actually *worse*. All depends who you want to listen too. I sometimes think the only reason we talk about it is that politicians have bought into it as an easy sell give their constituents a warm and fuzzy rather than use logic and reasoning.