The other day I was filling up the M5- again- when a simple thought occurred
to me: this is expensive. Fair enough. Cocaine is also expensive, and it's more
addictive than the thrill you get from pressing your right foot to the Beemer's
carpet. Well, OK, cocaine is slightly more addictive than powering through the
upper ranges of the 5's 400bhp engine, but cocaine is ILLEGAL. Yes, yes, driving
fast in this country is ALSO illegal. Damn! Where was I? Oh yes. Will I live to
see the day when sports cars are powered by something other than dead dinosaur?
I suppose the answer largely depends on my cholesterol levels and my
(questionable) ability to avoid solid objects at speed. Provided I live long
enough, I may see performance car engines evolve beyond internal combustion. I
doubt it. Why would anyone bother?
The belief that the need for less expensive forms of propulsion will trigger
a change in fuel technology is a non-starter. It's as absurd as the idea
that a Western European oil exporting country like, say, Britain, would want its
citizens to enjoy all the economic benefits of cheap petrol. If someone
developed a car that ran on potato peelings, the government would simply whack a
suitable tax on potato peelers, until peelings and petrol were equally
expensive. Ditto batteries. If boffins harnessed the unlimited potential of cold
fusion, The Powers That Be would find a way to tax the molecules. For every
idealist who pursues the dream of "cheap" power, there is an entire
building of Brussels bureaucrats ready, willing and able to tax it into
oblivion.
The idea that the world's oil wells will run dry within a thousand years
unless we all drive a Volkswagen Lupo is untrue, horrific and subject to
fashion. You may have noticed petrol heads are no longer attacked for
sacrificing precious petrochemicals on the altar of selfish pleasure. We're now
accused of warming the planet-- a notion that's so patently absurd only
tree-huggers and Oxford City Council begrudge us our microscopic pollution.
Despite the PC concept of the world as an Amsterdam waiting to happen, there's
no big, political push to replace oil as the fuel of choice. Post 911 (and I
don't mean Cayenne), Americans still prefer and endless and fruitless attempt to
broker peace in the Middle East- a region where peace last existed, um, never-to
a push for energy self-sufficiency. So oil it is, was, and will be, for a long
time to come.
Yes, but what of hydrogen? A zero pollution car that runs on water (unlike
Jesus, who had to walk) is nothing more than California dreamin'. There are
three major stumbling blocks. First, the technology needed for a compact fuel
cell is still as far away as lunar tourism. Second, motorists must be convinced
their cars won't Hindenburg. And third, you need energy to turn water into
hydrogen. And where do you think this energy would come from? Wind farms? Tidal
generators? Solar panels? Nope. Oil. Yes, the oil industry is now pro-hydrogen-
providing they can make the stuff at their existing refineries, and bury the
harmful hydrocarbons underground. Sounds great- for them. And the sheiks. But
first, let's get back to that fuel cell problem…
The only real hope for a switch away from traditional fuels comes from the
world of performance. Want more power? You'll need something quite exotic to
fuel it. The Fast and the Furious have entered the running for a collective
Darwin award by taking highly explosive NOx to their turbo-charged bosoms.
Still, it gets the job done. Does anyone remember an article earlier this year
about a 10,000 horsepower, 262 mile per hour jet-powered car? I quite fancy
having one of those "Vampires" parked in my drive (unlike Clarkson,
who has a decommissioned jet in his front garden). Still, one wonders about the
cost and logistics of running a Rolls Royce Orpheus engine on a regular basis.
The search for more performance has always been the best incentive for new
engine development. The power plants in today's generic econo-boxes owe a great
deal to the innovations developed on the racetrack-from engine block materials
to the precise control of ignition. That said, while a new type of engine could
evolve from the track, implementation would always be stymied by the expense of
creating a new infrastructure to support it. Hybrid vehicles try to get around
this problem. But Homebase only has so many extension cords-- and they'd
probably be taxed. And there's another, even more daunting obstacle: Bernie
Ecclestone.
Ever since Bernie got his claws on Formula One, the series has stifled all
engineering innovation. Every time a manufacturer figures out a better way to go
faster, it's banned. Billions of pounds that could have been spent developing
new automotive technology have been wasted on the provision of large-breasted
girls to chaperone old-fashioned machines to the grid. If we ever want to see a
new and better type of automobile engine- and true petrol heads will try
anything for a laugh- we need a no-holds barred race series. The day you see
turbine, jet, diesel, petrol, top-fuel, electric and whatever all duking it out
on the track is the day you should sell your shares in BP.