F1 reducing it's carbon footprint
Discussion
Kraken said:
Kawasicki said:
F1 is a symbol of elite hedonistic excess. Driving in circles while the world burns.
Well the carbon output of an F1 car for a whole season is about 2/3rds of the output of a typical family car for a year so the driving around in circles part isn't really the problem.TheDeuce said:
Kawasicki said:
F1 is a symbol of elite hedonistic excess. Driving in circles while the world burns.
You mean by being the most efficient motor sport of all time? Way more efficient than Formula E even?You're
That’s like saying “most friendly murderer”!
TheDeuce said:
Eric Mc said:
The most carbon friendly form of motorsport is NO motorsport.
That wouldn't be a motor sport then. It could well be the end game if motorspoort thinks that this is what is most important for them.
In 40 or 50 years, motorsport might have gone the way of jousting or chariot racing.
Eric Mc said:
Indeed it wouldn't.
It could well be the end game if motorspoort thinks that this is what is most important for them.
In 40 or 50 years, motorsport might have gone the way of jousting or chariot racing.
It will all be virtual racing by then, which really is the most environmentally friendly and efficient form of the sport. It's already started, with most of the big teams being involved in F1 esports in some way.It could well be the end game if motorspoort thinks that this is what is most important for them.
In 40 or 50 years, motorsport might have gone the way of jousting or chariot racing.
Kraken said:
Kawasicki said:
That’s too much co2.
Yes you're right.The average family car is putting out way too much CO2 compared to an F1 car. Of course beef production dwarfs both of them in terms of environmental damage but that's another conversation entirely.Oh well, best be off to bash some patriotic people for not being liberal enough to the point of societal suicide.
Kraken said:
Kawasicki said:
That’s too much co2.
Yes you're right.The average family car is putting out way too much CO2 compared to an F1 car. Of course beef production dwarfs both of them in terms of environmental damage but that's another conversation entirely.mattikake said:
Ah if only CO2 was actually bad for the planet, that climate change was bad for life and if only we had any means of controlling it... then there might actually be an argument here.
Oh well, best be off to bash some patriotic people for not being liberal enough to the point of societal suicide.
Or make like an ostrich and ignore 99% of scientific evidenceOh well, best be off to bash some patriotic people for not being liberal enough to the point of societal suicide.
Let's ignore the climate change thing for a moment and consider other, less debatable facets of environmental protection and F1's role in this because it is in fact these other facets that's driving a lot of the development in the sport.
Sustainability, for example. There's 63 years of oil left in the ground (based upon the limits of capability of current drilling technology and current usage levels). We need to work out ways of how we use less if it (and yes, that figure may be debatable. There' may be 73 years left or 100 years. The point is that it's finite. It will run out eventually).
Pollution. Anyone who thinks this is a namely-pamby issue, I would urge a visit to the many parts of the world where catalytic converters, unleaded petrol, unregulated power station and other burn emissions exist and allow the experience to refine your thinking. At believe me, it will.
F1 - indeed all motorsport - exists in a world that is increasingly ambivalent towards it and close to emerging strong opposition towards it. We can debate the why's and wherefores all we like but that is the state of things as they are and F1 has to respond to it.
I find it truly remarkable that the cars today are the fastest (or as close to) as they have ever been yet are using 40% less fuel doing so than they were 10 years ago. I read that in China, what comes out of their tailpipes is cleaner than the air that's sucked into the engines.
This is good stuff, chaps.
If this means that for F1 to survive and thrive it needs to pander to the Climate Change agenda, then fine. Even it Climate Change is b
ks, we use less oil and get cleaner air to breathe and a Formula One to follow and debate/moan about for further into the future.
What's wrong with that?
Sustainability, for example. There's 63 years of oil left in the ground (based upon the limits of capability of current drilling technology and current usage levels). We need to work out ways of how we use less if it (and yes, that figure may be debatable. There' may be 73 years left or 100 years. The point is that it's finite. It will run out eventually).
Pollution. Anyone who thinks this is a namely-pamby issue, I would urge a visit to the many parts of the world where catalytic converters, unleaded petrol, unregulated power station and other burn emissions exist and allow the experience to refine your thinking. At believe me, it will.
F1 - indeed all motorsport - exists in a world that is increasingly ambivalent towards it and close to emerging strong opposition towards it. We can debate the why's and wherefores all we like but that is the state of things as they are and F1 has to respond to it.
I find it truly remarkable that the cars today are the fastest (or as close to) as they have ever been yet are using 40% less fuel doing so than they were 10 years ago. I read that in China, what comes out of their tailpipes is cleaner than the air that's sucked into the engines.
This is good stuff, chaps.
If this means that for F1 to survive and thrive it needs to pander to the Climate Change agenda, then fine. Even it Climate Change is b
ks, we use less oil and get cleaner air to breathe and a Formula One to follow and debate/moan about for further into the future. What's wrong with that?
StevieBee said:
Let's ignore the climate change thing for a moment and consider other, less debatable facets of environmental protection and F1's role in this because it is in fact these other facets that's driving a lot of the development in the sport.
Sustainability, for example. There's 63 years of oil left in the ground (based upon the limits of capability of current drilling technology and current usage levels). We need to work out ways of how we use less if it (and yes, that figure may be debatable. There' may be 73 years left or 100 years. The point is that it's finite. It will run out eventually).
Pollution. Anyone who thinks this is a namely-pamby issue, I would urge a visit to the many parts of the world where catalytic converters, unleaded petrol, unregulated power station and other burn emissions exist and allow the experience to refine your thinking. At believe me, it will.
F1 - indeed all motorsport - exists in a world that is increasingly ambivalent towards it and close to emerging strong opposition towards it. We can debate the why's and wherefores all we like but that is the state of things as they are and F1 has to respond to it.
I find it truly remarkable that the cars today are the fastest (or as close to) as they have ever been yet are using 40% less fuel doing so than they were 10 years ago. I read that in China, what comes out of their tailpipes is cleaner than the air that's sucked into the engines.
This is good stuff, chaps.
If this means that for F1 to survive and thrive it needs to pander to the Climate Change agenda, then fine. Even it Climate Change is bks, we use less oil and get cleaner air to breathe and a Formula One to follow and debate/moan about for further into the future.
What's wrong with that?
Finally a sane post.Sustainability, for example. There's 63 years of oil left in the ground (based upon the limits of capability of current drilling technology and current usage levels). We need to work out ways of how we use less if it (and yes, that figure may be debatable. There' may be 73 years left or 100 years. The point is that it's finite. It will run out eventually).
Pollution. Anyone who thinks this is a namely-pamby issue, I would urge a visit to the many parts of the world where catalytic converters, unleaded petrol, unregulated power station and other burn emissions exist and allow the experience to refine your thinking. At believe me, it will.
F1 - indeed all motorsport - exists in a world that is increasingly ambivalent towards it and close to emerging strong opposition towards it. We can debate the why's and wherefores all we like but that is the state of things as they are and F1 has to respond to it.
I find it truly remarkable that the cars today are the fastest (or as close to) as they have ever been yet are using 40% less fuel doing so than they were 10 years ago. I read that in China, what comes out of their tailpipes is cleaner than the air that's sucked into the engines.
This is good stuff, chaps.
If this means that for F1 to survive and thrive it needs to pander to the Climate Change agenda, then fine. Even it Climate Change is b
ks, we use less oil and get cleaner air to breathe and a Formula One to follow and debate/moan about for further into the future. What's wrong with that?
Yes, in a nutshell F1 has made an effort a long time ago to address the fact that fossil fuels days are numbered. The whole point is that we have to use such resources carefully for what matters most. One thing that matters is joy - if no joy, what exactly are we fighting to protect??
F1 is a sport that through its scale burns quite a bit more fuel one way or another than any other racing series. On the flip side, there is no other racing series that burns so little fuel per viewer that enjoys the spectacle. And that includes the flights and trucking to each circuit.
As a species I think it's very likely we will stop being oil dependant long before we've pillaged the last of it, those wheels are already in motion. F1 will also adapt and evolve beyond that dependency too.
The human fascination with speed isn't driven by a desire to burn oil. It's way, way deeper than that and will outlive the ICE era.
Frankly, the moment battery tech catches up with solar tech the rest of the oil can stay where it is, it'll be worthless. The worthless million acres of the Nevada desert will then become priceless. Funny how technology solves problems slightly faster than it creates them..
TheDeuce said:
... Frankly, the moment battery tech catches up with solar tech the rest of the oil can stay where it is, it'll be worthless ...
An interesting by-product of which is that the income of many middle eastern countries will dry up to the point where they will be unable to afford guns, missiles, nuclear weapons development, etc.Evangelion said:
An interesting by-product of which is that the income of many middle eastern countries will dry up to the point where they will be unable to afford guns, missiles, nuclear weapons development, etc.
They have other more 'organic' exports... Enough to buy AK47's, which apparently cost as little as $5 USD. But for sure it would change the balance of wealth in oil rich areas enormously.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff